U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–768 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–115 

E-RATE 2.0: CONNECTING EVERY CHILD TO THE 

TRANSFORMATIVE POWER OF TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 17, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 17, 2013 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 30 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 36 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 40 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 44 

WITNESSES

Sheryl R. Abshire, Chief Technology Officer, Calcasieu Parish School System . 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Linda H. Lord, Maine State Librarian .................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Patrick Finn, Senior Vice President, U.S. Public Sector, Cisco Systems, Inc. ... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

James G. Coulter, Co-Chair, LEAD Commission (Leading Education By Advancing Digital) .................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

APPENDIX

Letter dated July 16, 2013 to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation from Mary Kusler, Director of Government 

Relations, National Education Association ........................................................ 53 

Letter dated July 17, 2013 to Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV and Hon. John 

Thune from Craig L. Silliman, Senior Vice President—Public Policy, 

Verizon .................................................................................................................. 54 

John D. Harrington, CEO, Funds For Learning, LLC, prepared statement ...... 54 

Response to written questions submitted to Sheryl R. Abshire by: 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 83 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 84 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 84 

Response to written questions submitted to Linda H. Lord by: 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 87 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 88 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 90 

Response to written questions submitted to Patrick Finn by: 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 92 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 92 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 93 

Response to written questions submitted to James G. Coulter by: 

Hon. Mark Pryor ............................................................................................... 138 

Hon. Amy Klobuchar ........................................................................................ 138 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 139 

(1) 

E-RATE 2.0: CONNECTING EVERY CHILD 

TO THE TRANSFORMATIVE POWER 

OF TECHNOLOGY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:50 p.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. My apologies. The Senate works in mysterious 

ways. I was perched, 5 minutes ago, dutifully on the Senate floor, 

ready to do the first of two votes, for which I was told there was 

an agreement. And then the agreement dissipated. So, now I’m told 

it’s at 3 o’clock, which is very shortly. So, let’s just hope that they 

meant 5. And I do apologize to you, because you’re all heroic. 

In—and where’s our—where are all our people? Where are our 

people? This is a big-deal hearing. 

Senator PRYOR. I think they had the same idea you did, Mr. 

Chairman, go over, vote, and come back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I didn’t see a soul over there. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Anyway, I apologize, particularly to the panelists, and to everyone. 

In 1996, I brought a 16-year-old high school girl from McDowell 

County, West Virginia. She was a high school sophomore, Jessica 

Lambert. And I brought her up here to testify before the Commerce 

Committee about her success with something called ‘‘distance 

learning.’’ Now, this is 1996. John Thune was 12. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator THUNE. A little older. 

The CHAIRMAN. A little older, OK. 

And an amazing thing happened. Nobody really understood what 

‘‘distance learning’’ meant, but she told us, because, from one of the 

poorest counties in the United States of America, she came up and 

spoke to us, and spoke to us, in part, in Japanese. Why? Because 

she had gone online, with University of Nebraska, to take a course. 

And she’s kept on with that, has moved on through Chinese and 

goodness knows what else, and she’s sort of the Shakespeare of 

Asian languages. That was stunning to me. That was stunning to 

2 

me. At the time, linking up classrooms via technology was an extraordinary idea or event, activity—not just the coalfields of southern West Virginia, but all across the country. 

In 1996, this Committee saw the power that technology has to 

transform a person’s life. Making sure that every child in America 

has that opportunity is a giant cliche ́ underwritten by an even 

greater and more giant truth. And that is, we owe that—we owe 

making sure that every child in America has the opportunity to fulfill their dreams even before they know they have dreams. And if 

they’ve picked out a field, which is unlikely, this’ll help them do it. 

And we glory in that. 

And all of this was really the reason I worked so hard with a 

wonderful Republican by the—well, I mean, there are many wonderful Republicans, but this one was Olympia Snowe and then-Congressman, now-Senator, Ed Markey, who is actually sitting way 

down there. He’s hard to see. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. He has been in the House for 37 years, but this 

is his second day in the Senate, so he’s sitting way down there. 

And we got something called—on a very bipartisan basis—the ERate Program. The impact of the E-Rate’s Program on our schools 

has been nothing short of revolutionary. Since its creation 17 years 

ago, E-Rate has provided more than $30 billion to connect the overwhelming majority of schools to the Internet. Now, it doesn’t give 

you a computer, it doesn’t give you a trained teacher, it doesn’t give 

you software, but it gives you the connectivity. 

For example, in 1996, when the Telecommunications Act was 

signed into law, only 14 percent of all classrooms in this country 

were connected. And therefore—to the Internet—classrooms. 

Among the poor schools, only 5 percent of classrooms were connected. The most recent statistics for classroom connection are 

amazing. Over 92 percent of all classrooms are connected, and 95 

percent of the poorest classrooms—previously 5 percent—95 percent are now connected. 

As impressive as these statistics are, they’re only part of a marvelous story. What’s even more notable is the story of what schools 

have been able to do with this connectivity. Through their Internet 

connections, schools in the U.S. have been able to conduct virtual 

field trips to international places, at their will. And if people have 

home computers and connection, they can do it all day—to the 

Great Barrier Reef in Australia, where I’ve never been and have 

no immediate plans to go. And at least one school has taken a virtual field trip into outer space, when they visited the International 

Space Station. 

I believe E-Rate has done more than just connect our schools; it 

has spurred a broadband revolution—insufficient, but, nevertheless, a broadband revolution—that has been a catalyst for widespread adoption of broadband technology. 

E-Rate is also connecting our nation’s libraries. Why libraries? 

Because we knew that, if we connected the schools, that would take 

care of a younger population, but what about adults? We count, too. 

And the best place to do that is from something called a library, 

which most small communities and large communities, obviously, 

have. And they remain the center of our communities, and hubs of 

3 

lifelong learning; now even more so. Our libraries remain on the 

forefront of public institutions that are adopting new technologies 

to meet the virtual demands of our communities. 

Long lines. You go down to McDowell County, in a little, tiny library, and you will see long lines. Libraries with connectivity give 

children and adults an opportunity to access computers and the 

Internet so that they are not at a disadvantage when they’re doing 

their homework and their research. For those seeking work, at the 

library they can access job postings, many of which are posted only 

online. And those in need of government services can use their 

community library to complete applications online. 

All of this is possible because of the critical funding that the ERate provides to libraries. E-Rate is transformational. It’s not all 

good—the Internet, that is—because it has brought us 

cybersecurity. So, in the mid-1990s, we took off. Let’s just hope 

that we can do this cybersecurity thing, which the Ranking Member and I are determined to do. 

But, we cannot sit back and simply enjoy this extraordinary success. Just as technology continues to evolve, so must the E-Rate 

Program. Several months ago, I called on the FCC to begin a process for creating E-Rate 2. I want to commend the FCC for moving 

quickly on this. A program designed nearly 17 years ago needs to 

reflect the connectivity and technology needs of our schools and libraries today and, indeed, into the future. And the bipartisan 

LEAD Commission, whose guide force, Jim Coulter, is in my eyes 

right now—he’s one of the panelists—is here today, has made it 

clear that, without significant investment in high-capacity Internet 

connectivity, the wireless networks in schools will fail our children. 

I know that we will hear from some who say that we cannot afford to do this. Skeptics will ask, Where will the money come from? 

It’s a fair question. What should we be asking is, I think, Can we 

afford not to do this? 

Cost comes from two directions. Can we afford to let our kids fall 

further and further behind their global peers in math and science? 

It’s embarrassing now, and will get worse. Can we afford to deny 

our teachers the tools they need to educate the next generation? 

That’s a complicated business, of teaching all of this. Can we afford 

not to give every child the abilities to succeed in a global economy? 

That’s often used as a throwaway line, but think about it. We are 

a global community. Our global economy demands an increasingly 

educated workforce with higher skills and strong backgrounds in 

science and math and technology and engineering. Technology continues to offer new tools for raising the quality of education for all 

students, if we will give it a chance. 

For so many of our schools, an Internet connection gives them access to an unparalleled amount of information they could otherwise 

not afford to have, and did not have. Technology has been the great 

equalizer in our society—the sociological statement—and every 

child deserves to be connected to the promise that this technology 

holds, no matter of income, location in our country, topography, or 

anything else. 

With the right investment in high-capacity, high-speed Internet 

connections, we can expand E-Rate so that it will be available to 

provide future generations of children the opportunity to compete 

4 

in an increasingly interconnected and data-driven world. There’s no 

doubt in my mind that E-Rate is the program that is giving more 

students a brighter future, and one that we absolutely know that 

is the future is within their reach. 

I am very passionate about this. And I’m very proud to have, as 

my Ranking Member, Senator John Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. 

And I want to thank our witnesses, our panelists who are here 

today, for being with us and sharing your perspectives and insights 

with us. 

And, Chairman Rockefeller, I want to start by complimenting you 

in your success, nearly 20 years, to include language in the 1996 

Act that laid the groundwork for E-Rate. While we might disagree 

on some of the particulars on how to modernize the program today, 

your commitment and determination, then and now, to deliver the 

promise of technology to our nation’s schools and libraries is a very 

laudable one, and you deserve a lot of credit for your great work 

and vision, way back at that time. 

The goal of the E-Rate Program is to connect America’s classrooms. And, by and large today, they are connected. E-Rate has 

played a role in this development, and I agree with champions of 

the program, like our new colleague, Senator Markey, who note 

that the original goals of E-Rate have largely been met. 

I also agree that the program needs to be reformed. E-Rate is 

nearly two decades old, and, like many of our communications 

laws, it could better reflect today’s digital reality. Like you, I am 

pleased that the FCC plans to move forward on Friday with a rulemaking to begin the modernization of E-Rate. Online activity in 

schools will no doubt continue to increase, as it will throughout our 

society. But, I hope E-Rate will avoid prioritizing reaching debatable speed goals for some schools at the expense of necessary 

connectivity in others. As we consider ultrafast broadband in American classrooms, we must not lose sight of those schools and students that still need more basic communication services. 

The President’s ConnectED initiative includes the goal of connecting 99 percent of America’s primary and secondary students 

with high-speed broadband and wireless within 5 years. We should 

keep in mind, however, that the unreached 1 percent in this case 

amounts to over half a million students. And that assumes the goal 

is met. So, the real number could be much higher. 

As a Senator from a very rural state with just 147,000 schoolchildren, the parents, teachers, and students that I represent 

would like to know where they stand as a priority for this Federal 

program, moving ahead. 

The fact is, schools in remote areas are simply more expensive 

to reach with service than their counterparts in more populated 

areas, which are typically located much closer to network infrastructure. This has always been the underlying issue at hand with 

universal service, and I look forward to seeing how the FCC addresses this reality through E-Rate reform. 

5 

I also want to draw particular attention to FCC Commissioner 

Pai’s speech, delivered yesterday, in which he outlined several reform ideas for the Commission to consider. I am intrigued by many 

of Commissioner Pai’s proposals, such as providing more simplicity, 

transparency, and accountability for the E-Rate Program and its 

beneficiaries. I am also pleased by his focus on local decisionmaking and flexibility, allowing schools to meet their own needs, 

which may not always be what Washington assumes. 

Finally, I want to applaud his suggestion that reform be achieved 

within the current resources available to the Universal Service 

Fund. The President, in rolling out his ConnectED initiative, also 

directed the Federal Government to make better use of existing 

funds to get Internet connectivity and educational technology into 

classrooms. I agree with Commissioner Pai and the President, because it is very important for all government programs to stay 

within their means in this difficult fiscal and economic environment. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing. I 

look forward to working with you to continue our committee’s oversight of the FCC and its E-Rate rulemaking. 

And I—as we have votes later today, I also have an Ag Committee oversight hearing with the CFTC, and it is an issue that is 

important in my state, so I will probably be trying to bounce back 

and forth. 

But, I appreciate us having the hearing and, again, the panelists 

who are with us today, and I look forward to what you have to say. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Let’s go directly to Dr. Sheryl Abshire. And she’s the Chief Technology Officer—and I have to pause here to get this right—at the 

Calcasieu Parish School System, which is the fifth-largest system 

in the State of Louisiana. And she’s a real expert on this. And I— 

we all look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SHERYL R. ABSHIRE, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 

OFFICER, CALCASIEU PARISH SCHOOL SYSTEM 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and members 

of the Committee. 

It’s my great privilege to testify before this committee once again 

about the importance of the E-Rate Program, not only to my school 

district, but to my state and the entire Nation. I want to personally 

thank the Chairman for having the foresight to found this now 15- 

year-old program and the wisdom to advocate for needed changes. 

My name is Sheryl Abshire, and I’ve been the Chief Technology 

Officer for the Calcasieu Parish Schools in Lake Charles, Louisiana, for the past 15 years, and a public educator in that system 

for over 40 years. Currently, I work with the Consortium for School 

Networking and the International Society for Technology and Education, as a member of those organizations. I’ve just completed a 

4-year term as the K–12 representative on the Schools and Libraries Committee of USAC. 

This hearing today comes at a pivotal point for the program. The 

E-Rate has achieved its interim goals of providing at least basic 

connections to the Internet for all of our nation’s schools and librarVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
6 

ies, regardless of where they’re located and the socioeconomic status of the communities that they serve. E-Rate supported networks 

that have facilitated educational attainment, personalized in virtual learning courses, and online professional development for millions of students and teachers. However, unless significant steps 

are taken to bolster the E-Rate, and they’re not taken promptly, I 

fear that the sun will set on this incredibly successful program. 

Today, I join with the voices of Chairman Rockefeller and FCC 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in declaring a need for E-Rate 

2.0. Any serious effort to change the program will start, I believe, 

with increasing the E-Rate’s annual support for the long term. For 

years, my colleagues and I have shouted from the rooftops that ERate was in danger of evaporating because of the escalating need 

for its support, with no significant funding increase to match. Now, 

we stand on the threshold of internal connection support becoming 

extinct and telephone and Internet access support facing cutbacks. 

We cannot let this happen. 

My district is the fifth largest district in Louisiana, and we have 

nearly 5,000 employees and more than 33,000 students, covering 

more than 75 buildings. Six months after I testified before this 

committee in 2005, my parish, our public school system, and all of 

our schools were wiped out by Hurricane Rita. But, thanks to 14 

dollars—$14 million in E-Rate support, we were able to rebuild our 

network and expand it to meet the district’s growing need for bandwidth. Today, our district’s wired network infrastructure supports 

35,000 network devices over a wide-area network. Our wireless infrastructure supports a network of 3,000 wireless access points; 

and, on any given day, peak usage of our network’s infrastructure 

reaches 95 percent of its capacity, with over 9,000 users accessing 

the network at any single time. Even more, in excess of 250,000 emails are exchanged on our network each day. 

And all of this has made a huge difference to our students. Between 1999 and 2011, proficiency levels on state exams for Louisiana students with special needs, low-income students, and African-American students have grown between 26 and 31 percent— 

percentage points. E-Rate truly has helped some of our most impoverished schools. 

Example: At Nelson Elementary School, an urban Title I school 

with in excess of 50 percent of their students on free and reduced 

lunch, and 17 percent of their students having English as a second 

language, every classroom is equipped with at least 10 iPads, a 

Promethean Board, and a variety of cutting-edge technology 

school—tools. Parents check grades online, they view student assignments, and students work online 24/7 via our Online Learning 

Portal. Between 2008 and 2012, Nelson’s average state school performance score increased by 16 percent. Nelson is now designated 

as a school of recognized academic achievement. 

However, our work is not complete. Calcasieu needs more bandwidth to support forthcoming online assessments to ensure reliable 

connectivity for our video security systems and our door-entry systems that we are beginning to install in the wake of the Newtown 

crisis. We need to make sure our students and our teachers gain 

access to the very best educational online content, services, and 

tool available. 

7 

Unfortunately, our and the Nation’s need for more E-Rate support is colliding with the reality of E-Rate’s inadequate funding 

today. The program’s $2.25 billion cap was set, back in 1998, well 

before tablets and smartphones existed. It is simply insufficient to 

meet school and library demands, some 15 years later. Indeed, this 

year’s estimate of program demand, about $5 billion, is more than 

double the available funds. And alarming is the fact that the 

growth in Priority 1 services demand, a 10-percent increase in this 

year alone, is truly leading to de facto elimination of Priority 2. 

And if the trend of increasing demand for priority one holds true 

next year, even priority-one applicants may have to receive reduced 

discounts. 

I submit to you, this afternoon, that we cannot allow E-Rate to 

slowly expire. I strongly agree with Chairman Rockefeller and FCC 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and the President that we need 

a plan to put E-Rate back on track—an E-Rate 2.0, if you will. For 

me, that plan starts with more funding. In my opinion, we need a 

permanent increase in E-Rate’s annual cap that, at a minimum, 

meets current demand. Additionally, I believe the FCC should consider establishing a rather lookback period—a formal lookback period, regularly—every 5 years, perhaps, to assess whether the program’s funding levels adequately meet demand. 

Additionally, I agree with Commissioner Rosenworcel that bandwidth targets are an important part of E-Rate 2.0. When the program began in 1998, we only measured the fact that classroom and 

library connections were there, and we were thrilled when virtually 

all schools and libraries achieved some kind of Internet connection. 

However, a low bandwidth connection 15 years ago does not meet 

the immense bandwidth needs entailed by this explosion of online 

content, assessments tools, services, and communications in our 

classrooms. 

I believe we need to set well recent achievable goals for classrooms and device connectivity that reflect the needs of modern education. I think it’s vital these goals be based on demand and data, 

and that they take into account the different needs and demands 

of rural, urban, and suburban schools and libraries. Like E-Rate’s 

funding level, I support these periodic reappraisals and adjustments of these bandwidth goals. 

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on this 

very important subject, and I look forward to supporting his and 

the FCC’s efforts to protect and preserve the E-Rate Program. And 

I will entertain questions, if it’s appropriate, later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Abshire follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERYL ABSHIRE, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR OF TECHNOLOGY, CALCASIEU PARISH

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. It is my great privilege to testify before this Committee once again about the importance of the E-Rate 

program to my school district, my state and the entire nation. For me, this is a particularly special honor as it affords me the opportunity to personally thank the 

Chairman for having the foresight to found this now 15-year-old program and the 

wisdom to advocate for changes that will modernize it and secure its long-term future. 

8 

My name is Sheryl Abshire and I have been the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) 

for Calcasieu Parish Public Schools in Lake Charles, Louisiana for the past 15 

years. I have been an educator for more than 40 years, starting as a second grade 

teacher in 1973, working as a Librarian/Media Specialist during the 1980s, and 

serving as a Principal for two elementary schools during the 1990s. In 1998, I 

moved into my current role as my district’s CTO, where I created and implemented 

my district’s technology program and coordinate its annual E-Rate applications process. This hearing today comes at a pivotal moment for the program. E-Rate has 

achieved its interim goals of providing at least basic connections to the Internet for 

all of our Nation’s schools and libraries, regardless of where they are located and 

the socioeconomic status of the communities that they serve. E-Rate supported networks have facilitated educational achievement, personalized and virtual learning 

courses, and online professional development for millions of students and teachers. 

And E-Rate supported networks have allowed library patrons to gain access to employment opportunities and government services. However, unless significant steps 

to bolster the E-Rate are not taken promptly, I fear that the sun will set on this 

incredibly successful program. 

I am here today to join my voice with the voices of Chairman Rockefeller and FCC 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel in declaring the need for an E-Rate 2.0. In my 

view, any serious effort to change the program must start with increasing E-Rate’s 

annual support for the long term. For years, my colleagues and I have shouted from 

the rooftops that E-Rate was in danger of evaporating because of escalating need 

for its support with no significant funding increase to match. Now, we stand on the 

threshold of internal connections support becoming extinct and telephone and Internet access support facing cutbacks. We cannot let this happen. 

Just as important as more funding are new goals for the program. E-Rate needs 

to move beyond assessing whether a classroom or library has an Internet connection 

to determining whether that connection’s speed meets the needs of users who seek 

to access and use the most up-to-date digital content, courses, resources, services 

and tools. Clear goals that do not meet that standard will not effectively chart ERate’s into the future. 

My recommendations on E-rate 2.0 arise from my long history with the program 

as well as in state and national education policy. Currently, I serve as a Board 

Member of the Consortium for School Networking, a non-profit organization that 

was instrumental in securing the E-Rate’s passage. I have also participated in the 

refresh of the National Education Technology Standards as a member of the International Society for Technology in Education, a large ed tech non-profit that was 

also deeply involved with the launch of the E-Rate. Finally, I just completed a fouryear term as one of the K–12 education association representatives on the Schools 

and Libraries Committee of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), 

which administers E-Rate and the other Universal Service programs. 

Please allow me to give you a little background on my district and its network, 

why technology infrastructure matters to our district, how we paid for this all, and 

where we need to go from here. 

Calcasieu and the Network 

Today, Calcasieu is the fifth largest district in Louisiana, where nearly 5,000 employees educate more than 33,000 students, working out of 59 schools and 17 district office sites. Our district’s wired network infrastructure supports 35,000 network devices over a Wide Area Network (WAN) connection that delivers broadband 

Internet access at 100 mbps. Our network is supported by a fiber optic backbone 

to all sites that is interconnected by over 1200 network switches and 65 virtual servers and 53 physical servers. The services that Calcasieu’s network provides include: 

• Internet resources 

• Network storage 

• Wireless access 

• Student information systems 

• Virtual learning platforms 

• Voice Over IP (VoIP) 

• Environmental controls 

• Online testing 

• Video security systems 

• Access control systems (door entry) 

• E-mail 

9 

Aside from our wired connections, Calcasieu’s robust wireless infrastructure supports a network of 3,000 wireless access points. As the number of mobile devices 

increases with the implementation of Bring Your Own Device and 1-to-1 initiatives, 

this wireless connectivity is becoming a resource that is required for student learning devices. 

Why Technology Infrastructure Matters to Calcasieu 

Why must Calcasieu have such a robust network? The answer is simple: unbelievable demand for online educational resources and the need to communicate. Overall, 

on any given day, peak usage of our network’s infrastructure reaches 90–95 percent 

of its capacity with over 9,000 users accessing the network at the same time. 

What do Calcasieu’s users access? For one thing, they use Calcasieu virtual learning system, which offers a rich learning environment conducive and supportive of 

today’s students and educators. Beyond accessing content, today’s students—and 

their teachers!—are also uber communicators and they make heavy use of the network for e-mail. At Calcasieu, all staff and students having access to e-mail accounts and a total number of 35,000 e-mail accounts exist on our network. Even 

more staggering, 250,000 e-mails are exchanged on Calcasieu’s network each day. 

Where is the proof that this network matters educationally? If testing is any measure, student test scores have improved dramatically with the advent of technology 

in Calcasieu and across the entire state. Between 1999, the year after the E-Rate 

began, and 2011, student subgroups that traditionally struggle on exams—students 

with special needs, low-income students and African-American students—saw their 

academic proficiency on state exams grow, respectively, by 31 percentage points, 26 

percentage points and 26 percentage points. In Calcasieu, over the past five years, 

we have seen measurable progress in proficiency as well; 

• English/Language Arts improved 6 percentage points—71 percent in 2009 to 77 

percent in 2013; 

• Math improved 4 percentage points—70 percent in 2009 to 74 percent in 2013; 

• Science improved 4 percentage points—68 percent in 2009 to 72 percent in 

2013; 

• Social Studies improved 4 percentage points—71 percent in 2009 to 75 percent 

in 2013. 

While all of these gains are not directly attributable to our network and the ERate, there is no question in my mind that technology and broadband access have 

played a significant role. Two examples from Calcasieu make this case well: 

1. Frasch Elementary in Sulphur, a rural Title l school with over 50 percent of 

its students on the Federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, immerses 

its students in a high-tech environment. Teachers and students have robust 

Internet access and unlimited access to technology tools, hardware, and software. Perhaps most importantly, Frasch staff make ample use of just in time/ 

job embedded staff development in the strategic use of technology to improve 

student achievement. As a result of this strong technology implementation, the 

school has experienced huge gains in student achievement over the past six 

years, with its School Performance Score growing from 108.4 to 121.8 points. 

Indeed, Frasch has grown to be recognized as an ‘‘A’’ school in the Louisiana 

accountability system. 

2. Nelson Elementary School is an urban Title 1 school with in excess of 50 percent of their students on free and reduced lunch. In addition to its high poverty 

challenges, 17 percent of Nelson’s students have English as their second language. Like Frasch, Nelson has sought to improve its academics with a strong 

technology program. Thus, every classroom is equipped with at least 10 iPads, 

a Promethean Board and a variety of other cutting edge technology and interactive tools. The school also has five ACTIVtables, two Laptop Labs and one 

Successmaker Desktop Lab. Parents are able to check grades online and view 

student assignments and student work via its online learning portal. The 

school library has a rich resource of e-books available online. Also like Frasch, 

this high tech model has yielded significant results: its 2012 state School Performance Score of 118.4 represents a 16 percent increase since 2008; it received 

a state designation as a school of Recognized Academic Achievement and a 

High Gains Award; and it has now been designated as a Model Inclusion 

school. 

How Calcasieu built the network 

Eight years ago, I testified before this Committee about how vital the E-Rate program had been in transforming Calcasieu from a technology backwater into a naVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
10 

tionally recognized digital district. At that time, Calcasieu had received $4 million 

in E-Rate support to establish 100 mgps connections for the 11,000 desktop computers that we had then (about a third of what we have today). Back then, I indicated that the vast majority of these funds had been used to support plain old telephone service, cellular phone service, the installation and upgrade of a high-speed 

network to all of our 59 schools, and the bandwidth used by our compressed video 

services. Mobile wireless devices like tablet computers, which are proliferating in 

schools nationwide, did not exist then, nor did online assessments. I concluded my 

statement in 2005 by calling E-Rate ‘‘a blessing for my district’’ and stating: ‘‘Our 

students, teachers, library/media specialists and administrators have all benefited 

greatly from the distance learning courses, online professional development, and the 

wealth of Web-based material that the E-Rate has put at their fingertips. We continue to make significant progress academically in our schools, which, in no small 

measure, is helped by the E-Rate.’’ Given all that has happened in Calcasieu since 

then, truer words I have never spoken. 

In 2005, six months after I testified here, Hurricane Rita ravaged Calcasieu Parish and its public schools and tore apart much of the infrastructure that Calcasieu 

had spent eight years building. E-Rate supported infrastructure played a significant 

role in helping the district react quickly to the disaster, allowing the district’s still 

operational internal networks and e-mail system to make payroll for its more than 

4,000 employees just days after the hurricane and facilitating communication and 

online learning amongst students, parents and educators that Rita had scattered. 

However, the damage to the network we built was substantial. 

Fortunately, the E-Rate was there to come to our rescue. Over the past seven and 

a half years, we relied on E-Rate support to rebuild our network and expand its 

reach. Using $14 million in E-Rate support received since 2006, we upgraded our 

network to serve more than three times as many devices as we were serving before 

Hurricane Rita and established a robust wireless network to support the burgeoning 

number of mobile wireless devices in our schools today. Specifically, E-Rate helped 

us defray the network costs for over 1,200 network switches and over 3,000 wireless 

access points. It allowed us to upgrade our wired infrastructure to broadband levels. 

Additionally, E-Rate support proved critical as we converted the district’s telephone 

system to Voice Over IP (VOIP), which now includes over 1,300 VOIP phones and 

network storage for voice-mails associated with all telephone extensions. Without ERate, we might never have recovered from Rita and could not have expanded our 

network to serve the district’s learning and technology needs. 

Where Calcasieu and E-Rate go from here 

Even with E-Rate’s incredible support and the high quality network in Calcasieu 

that it helped build and maintain, my job—and E-Rate’s—in Calcasieu is far from 

completed. Calcasieu’s need for still more bandwidth far into the future is readily 

apparent. Right now, we are preparing for online academic assessments, requiring 

even greater levels of bandwidth, which will be arriving as soon as next year in 

Calcasieu and Louisiana. Moreover, in the wake of the tragedy at New Town in 

Connecticut, we are stepping up our technology security measures, installing video 

security systems and door entry systems, both of which require reliable network 

connectivity. Finally, our students and teachers are interacting with new and valuable online educational content, services and tools each day, all of which place still 

greater bandwidth demands on our network. Thus, our need for E-Rate goes on. 

Unfortunately, Calcasieu’s need—as well as the Nation’s need—for more E-Rate 

support is colliding with the reality of E-Rate’s inadequate funding. The program’s 

$2.25 billion annual cap was set back in 1998, well before tablets and smart phones 

existed, and is simply insufficient to meet school and library demand some 15 years 

later. Indeed, this year’s estimate of program demand—$4.986 billion—is more than 

double available funds. Based on my experience, that demand is actually lower than 

actual need as many districts forego applying for Priority 2 services as they know 

they have almost no chance of receiving support. Even more alarming is the fact 

that the growth in Priority 1 services demand—a 10 percent increase this year 

alone—is leading to de facto elimination of Priority 2. Experts expect that the increased demand for Priority 1 services this year, $260 million more than last year 

for a total of approximately $2.7 billion, will likely lead to no available funding for 

Priority 2 internal connections services. And if the trend of increasing demand for 

Priority 1 holds true next year, even Priority 1 applicants may have to receive reduced discounts. 

We cannot allow E-Rate to slowly expire. I agree with Chairman Rockefeller, FCC 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and the President that we need a plan to put 

E-Rate back on track—an E-Rate 2.0, if you will. For me, that plan starts with more 

funding. And when I recommend more funding, I am not talking about a one-time 

11 

surge that, when it ends, returns E-Rate to current funding levels. In my opinion, 

we need a permanent increase in the E-Rate’s annual cap that, at a minimum, 

meets current demand. Additionally, I believe that the FCC should consider establishing a regular look-back period, perhaps every five years, to assess whether the 

program’s funding levels adequately meet demand. 

Aside from more funding, I agree with Commissioner Rosenworcel that bandwidth 

targets are an important piece of E-Rate 2.0. When the program began in 1998, we 

only measured the fact of classroom and library connections and were thrilled when 

virtually all schools and libraries achieved some sort of Internet connection. However, a low-bandwidth connection 15 years ago does not begin to meet the immense 

bandwidth needs entailed by the explosion of online content, assessments, tools, 

services and communications present in today’s classroom. For E-Rate 2.0, I believe 

we need to set well-reasoned, achievable bandwidth goals for classroom and device 

connectivity that reflect the needs of modern education. I think it vital that these 

goals be based on data and that they take into account the different needs and demands of rural, urban and suburban schools and libraries. Like E-Rate’s funding 

level, I support periodic reappraisals and adjustments of these bandwidth goals. 

Conclusion 

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on this most important subject and 

look forward to supporting his and the FCC’s efforts to protect and preserve the ERate program. Calcasieu, Louisiana and the Nation are fully behind the E-Rate. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, thank you very, very much, Ms.—Dr. 

Abshire. I apologize. 

Next is Ms. Linda Lord, State librarian, Maine State Library. 

And, obviously, you’ve got to think immediately of Olympia Snowe. 

But, also, Ms. Lord is the current chair of the American Library 

Association’s E-Rate Task Force and as the E-Rate liaison for the 

Association of State Library Directors. 

We’re happy that you’re here, Ms. Lord. And please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA H. LORD, MAINE STATE LIBRARIAN 

Ms. LORD. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Linda Lord, the 

Maine State Librarian. I want to thank Chairman Rockefeller, 

Ranking Member Thune, and members of the Committee for this 

opportunity to testify on the success of the E-Rate Program and the 

needs of our 16,000-plus public libraries across the country who 

serve 30 million people each week. 

The E-Rate Program has transformed libraries and the technology resources we offer our communities. In 1996, only 28 percent of our public libraries provided public Internet access, compared with nearly 100 percent today. E-Rate has been fundamental 

to ensuring equity of service to online educational, workforce, and 

government resources for all of our citizens. 

Frankly, we’re at a turning point where we can continue to 

watch demand overwhelm the E-Rate Program or we can step boldly forward with a proactive vision for meeting the educational and 

learning needs of our communities for the next 15 years and beyond. 

How information is delivered and shared is changing at an incredible rate. Learning in libraries and schools increasingly relies 

on interactive online experiences, and capacity needs are also growing as job training, continuing education, and Government agencies 

use streaming media and Web-delivered videos to reach our communities. 

When the Maine School and Library Network was formed, in 

1996–1997, we were thrilled to connect our schools and libraries 

with 56-kilobit-per-second connectivity and FRADs, frame relay acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
12 

cess devices. And when people from Cisco said, ‘‘You need to think 

ahead to routers,’’ we said, ‘‘Oh, no we don’t. We’re so thrilled with 

this connectivity we have.’’ We didn’t have the vision to begin to 

see how quickly things would move. 

A single patron watching a high-definition video today will consume nearly all of a T–1 connection, leaving other patrons limited 

access to the Web. Inadequate bandwidth stifles a library’s ability 

to provide new services, such as interactive online homework help 

or digital learning labs. I’m old enough to remember when it took 

20 minutes to achieve a dial-up connection. In fact, while I’m 

confessing, I’m old enough to remember telephones mounted on the 

wall, where you cranked to reach the operator, and, if the person 

wasn’t home, you said to the operator, ‘‘Where are they?’’—and 

they told you. It was—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LORD. Things have certainly changed since my youth. 

In 1998, I could not have envisioned the program libraries offer 

today. For instance, in Maine we are using interactive videoconferencing technology to connect rural Mainers with volunteer attorneys who offer clinics to library patrons on topics like filing taxes 

or debt counseling. So, a lawyer comes into the Maine State Library, does an hour-long presentation, answers questions from 

videoconferencing centers from around the state. And then, on May 

1, we had a day when every county in Maine had at least two libraries with lawyers in them, where people could meet with the 

lawyers and get free legal help. I think that’s probably one of the 

original things that’s happened in the country. I can’t guarantee 

that, but I don’t know of other states who have done it. 

Libraries provide technology-rich programs for young people. And 

an example of this comes from the Cherryfield Public Library. And, 

frankly, in Maine terms, with all due respect to Cherryfield, it’s in 

the willy wacks. There are 1,200 citizens in Cherryfield, but that 

little library, through videoconferencing, brought in 28 elementary 

students to view a live program on flight from the Smithsonian Institution. This would not have been possible even 5 years ago. 

Libraries are also keys to the success of nontraditional students, 

such as Maine’s 5,000 homeschoolers. Learners of all ages use libraries to take online courses. They cover areas not available locally. And students use libraries and online data bases to prep for 

GED courses, the ASVAB tests, and other tests. We also help 

adults who need to improve and develop their job skills and take 

necessary courses to qualify for better jobs. Public libraries serve 

everyone from preliteracy to Medicare Part D. And I do mean that 

literally. 

Chairman Rockefeller really gave my testimony, but I thought, 

since I’m here, I might as well keep going with it. 

We had a young man in Holton who went to McDonald’s to apply 

for a job. And I’m sure you all know, even though nobody here has 

applied for a job at McDonald’s, that you have to apply online. 

Well, this young man didn’t have a clue, but he did know, if he 

needed help, he should go to his library. They found the forms for 

him. They helped him apply online. And then, the last thing he 

read on the application was, ‘‘We will notify you of an interview, 

if you receive one, by e-mail.’’ He didn’t have an e-mail address. He 

13 

didn’t know how to get an e-mail address. The library set him up. 

He went back to the library each day to check his e-mail to see if 

he had an interview. And that’s happening all over the country. It’s 

an incredibly wonderful service libraries offer. 

Maine is the least-densely populated state east of the Mississippi, but our Maine School and Library Network reaches even 

the most remote citizens. The public library in Maine is the only 

place for free Internet access in 77 percent of our communities. 

We’re not exactly studded with Starbucks. 

Our libraries and schools would have not have connectivity and 

all that it brings to their communities if it were not for E-Rate. 

And I highlighted that sentence in my remark. I mean that most 

sincerely. We would not have connectivity and all that it brings to 

our schools and libraries if it were not for E-Rate. However, it’s not 

enough to be connected; we need high-speed, reliable connections, 

like the one at the Omaha Public Library, for example, that ensured one patron could Skype into three interviews with Boeing before being offered a job. And we also need upload capacities that 

rival download speeds for small businesses to upload large packets 

of information into the Cloud. 

In 2010, the FCC report on the E-Rate Program said that 80 percent of applicants reported their connectivity was inadequate. The 

current level of telecommunications and information services demands E-Rate 2.0. Today, through the ConnectED initiative and 

the upcoming E-Rate proceedings, we have an opportunity to address this shortfall and lay the groundwork to meet future needs. 

In closing, libraries are vital community technology hubs, and we 

simply cannot allow inadequate bandwidth to be the limiting factor 

for what our students and our nations can achieve. 

And, in conclusion, I do want to acknowledge the bipartisan effort and support for the E-Rate Program by Chairman Rockefeller 

and Maine’s original E-Rate champion, Olympia Snowe, as well as 

to others who have supported this critical program over the years. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the library experience at 

this very formative time in the E-Rate Program. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lord follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA H. LORD, MAINE STATE LIBRARIAN

Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and 

members of the Committee for inviting me here today to testify about how the ERate program has enabled libraries to connect our communities and how we might 

further strengthen the program to better support digital learning. 

My name is Linda Lord, and I am the Maine State Librarian. Before joining the 

state library 14 years ago, I spent 16 years as a school librarian at the Mount View 

Junior/Senior High School in Thorndike, Maine. Today I am honored to speak on 

behalf of Maine’s libraries, part of the more than 16,000 public libraries in the U.S., 

about the role of the E-Rate program in helping libraries ensure that no one is excluded from digital opportunity. 

This hearing is focused on the role of E-Rate in maximizing access and use of 

technology to benefit every child in America. I am proud of the role that both our 

libraries and schools play in giving our young people the opportunity to develop the 

critical thinking and technological skills they need to succeed in today’s economy 

and prepare them for tomorrow’s economy too. 

I would be remiss if I did not pause here to acknowledge the bipartisan support 

for the E-Rate program by Chairman Rockefeller and Maine’s original E-Rate champion, former Senator Olympia Snowe, that lead to the establishment of the E-Rate 

14 

1http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/01/22/library-services/ 

2http://www.ala.org/research/plftas/2011l2012 

program. The citizens of Maine are deeply indebted to the foresight and commitment of these two leaders as well as to others who have supported the program over 

the years. 

It has been my pleasure to work with students and their parents in rural Maine 

(Thorndike, population 890) and now, as State Librarian, to serve the 1.3 million 

residents across our state. Our libraries serve everyone, from the remote areas in 

western Maine, to Downeast Washington County (which is a county the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined but with a population of just 32,000), to Portland, 

our most populous City of 66,000. 

Though Maine is the least densely populated state east of the Mississippi, our library system reaches citizens in the most far-flung parts of the state. In the summer months, our libraries allow visitors to stay longer, relying on the Internet at 

the local library so they do not have to completely ‘‘unplug’’ from work. Speaking 

as someone very familiar with the phone-as-an-appendage for all teenagers, we 

know that while parents are responding to work e-mails, their kids are staying in 

touch with friends and often using the library Wi-Fi to read the latest thread on 

Tumblr. I actually heard a story that a teen was on the library porch reading a Stephen King book on her iPhone using the library’s Wi-Fi connection instead of reading the print book from the library. How people use our libraries and our internetenabled services continues to change every year. 

I’ve been involved with the E-Rate program since the beginning, and I have witnessed the tremendous positive impact it has had throughout Maine and indeed nationwide. As State Librarian, I am also a member of the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) and regularly hear from my colleagues about the role ERate has in their own states. In Nebraska, for instance, a resident of the Dundee 

neighborhood has been coming into the Sorensen Branch of the Omaha Public Library with her laptop to Skype into job interviews. I’m thrilled to report she ultimately received a job offer from Boeing. Web and videoconferencing are amazing— 

and bandwidth-intensive—tools for closing distances across our vast nation. 

I have also served as Chair of the American Library Association’s E-Rate Task 

Force for the last four years and thus have a deep appreciation for the intricacies 

of the program, the issues that most concern library applicants, and how the program has only become more vital to libraries in a more complex technology landscape. I will be sharing share some E-Rate successes with you today. 

I’m old enough to remember the days of dial-up when you had to listen to that 

annoying modem sound and hope that you could get a connection. Clearly, we are 

in a different place today. So are our libraries. In 1996, only 28 percent of public 

libraries provided public Internet access, compared with over 99 percent who report 

this is the case today. 

The E-Rate program has transformed libraries and the technology resources we 

offer our communities since 1998. According to a 2013 Pew Internet Project report 

the availability of computers and Internet access now rivals book lending and reference expertise as vital library services. Seventy-seven percent of Americans say 

free access to computers and the Internet is a ‘‘very important’’ service of libraries, 

compared with 80 percent who say borrowing books and access to reference librarians are ‘‘very important’’ services.1

The most recent downturn in the economy has further established the critical importance of the E-Rate program. The downturn hit Maine hard, as it did so many 

communities across the country. We see the lingering effects in our libraries. In 

2012, 60 percent of public libraries reported an increase in use of their public access 

computers from the previous year (on top of the 69.8 percent increase reported in 

2010–2011 and the 75.7 percent reported in 2009–2010). Librarians consider the 

provision of public Internet services to job seekers the most important service to 

their communities, followed by access to government services and providing educational resources for K12 students. Ninety-two percent of all libraries report they 

provide access to jobs databases and other job opportunity resources.2

Many of our residents struggle with inadequate resources to meet basic necessities and depend on the library to stay connected. Families come to the library so 

that their kids can work on homework assignments, some bringing their own 

laptops to use the library’s Wi-Fi. More people use our computers and Internet access to look for and apply for jobs or to recertify for a new position. In Maine the 

public library is the only place people can go for free Internet access in 77 percent 

of our communities. Nationwide, 62 percent of libraries report this is the case. When 

so much of what we do today is dependent on having a high quality Internet connecVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
15 

tion, the library has become a lifeline. Our libraries could not provide this basic 

service without E-Rate. 

As we all hoped in 1996, the E-Rate program has transformed libraries for the 

digital age. It remains a critical Federal telecommunications funding source that 

goes directly to libraries, and it has done a tremendous job in connecting them. 

Today we can boast that nearly all libraries provide public Internet access and 

about 91 percent provide access to Wi-Fi, an increasingly important service in our 

communities. Though our libraries are connected at some level, the issue today is 

the quality or speed of that connection, which is often inadequate. 

We must strengthen and add to the capacity of the E-Rate program to ensure libraries and schools are equipped to engage students and learners in the 21st century. I would like to share with you some examples that illustrate the internet-enabled services supported by the E-Rate program that libraries provide their communities. I will also talk about what we see on the horizon. 

The nature of how information is delivered and shared is changing. Education increasingly relies on networked and online experiences. Whether it’s checking for an 

assignment through a course management system, watching a biology video on 

YouTube, or practicing French pronunciation via a librarian-selected tutoring 

website, K12 students at the library are eating up the available bandwidth. This 

problem is exacerbated as job training programs, continuing education instruction, 

and government officials (e.g., local, state, and Federal elected officials) increasingly 

rely on streaming media and Web-delivered videos to reach individuals across the 

country and they often promote the library as the place to receive this information. 

A single patron watching a high-definition video will consume nearly all of a traditional T–1 (1.5 Mbps) connection, leaving other patrons using the library’s other 

computers or personal laptops with intermittent or no access. Inadequate bandwidth 

also limits a library’s ability to effectively provide new Internet services, such as 

interactive online homework help or videoconferencing, let alone the full spate of 

emerging technology-enabled services, some of which we have not yet imagined but 

for which we need to be prepared. 

As you know, the Internet is a vastly different place than it was in 1996 with 

the proliferation of social media and production tools pushing the envelope of what 

we expect to be able to do online—Facebook, Flickr, and Gmail began in 2004, 

YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006, Google Docs in 2007, and now Instagram and 

Pinterest, which to tell you the truth, I am not even sure how to use, though our 

young people are adept at all of them. 

In 1998, the first year of the E-Rate program, I could not have envisioned a new 

program we now offer through Maine libraries. We use videoconferencing technology 

to connect rural Mainers with volunteer attorneys in our ‘‘Lawyers in Libraries’’ program. We offer clinics in real-time on various legal topics like filing taxes, renter’s 

rights and responsibilities, and debt counseling to any public library patron. Our 

program also allows low-income residents to set up private consultations using the 

same video conferencing technology. 

Even our small libraries can provide connections to information and experiences 

outside their local communities. The director of the Cherryfield (Maine) Public Library, which serves a population of about 1,200, told me about a partnership with 

the Smithsonian’s Interactive Video Conference Program here in Washington. The 

library hosted 28 elementary students to view in real-time an exhibit at the Smithsonian. These students would otherwise not be able to experience the resources 

available through these virtual field trips. This library also has had a video conferencing program with the IRS for small businesses. 

I couldn’t be more impressed with what our libraries are doing, and know similar 

things are happening in other states. As a matter of fact, the Jessamine Public Library in Nicholasville, Kentucky recently partnered with one of its local elementary 

schools to offer a virtual field trip for students and their families to the Texas State 

Aquarium located in Corpus Christi. The aquarium has video cameras located 

around the facilities that allow the audience to experience their exhibits live. Guided by a docent at the aquarium, students visited the various habitats and saw the 

birds, sea turtles, river otters, fish, sharks and dolphins that make up some of the 

attractions. Enabled by strong and reliable Internet connection, these children could 

take part in a unique educational experience. 

These stories should be commonplace in the coming years and, in fact, can be if 

libraries have access to affordable high-capacity broadband connections. I know it 

is the backbone of E-Rate support that lets the library provide these dynamic services, but the message here is that there is a group of kids that were connected outside of their small community to a learning opportunity that would not have been 

possible even five years ago. Librarians think this is just the beginning. 

16 

3http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/05/01/parents-children-libraries-and-reading/ 

But there aren’t nearly enough of these stories and there could be many more 

with adequate bandwidth. In a 2010 FCC report on the E-Rate program, 78 percent 

of applicants reported their connectivity was inadequate. There is clearly more work 

to be done, and the ConnectED initiative provides a perfect and timely opportunity 

to ensure that libraries and schools are prepared to meet the 21st century needs 

of their patrons and students. As we consider changes necessary to build a robust 

and sustainable E-Rate program for everyone, we must also be mindful of some of 

the unique challenges our small and rural libraries have in securing adequate bandwidth and securing the E-Rate funding they require. Though progress has been 

made, there are still areas where libraries just can’t get the bandwidth they need 

because it isn’t there or the costs are too high to reach where it is. And, when it 

comes to the E-Rate application process we must consider processes that encourage 

smaller libraries to apply. We must not let bandwidth be the limiting factor in the 

services libraries can provide our communities. 

I would like to talk a little about Maine’s most precious resource and one we are 

pinning our hopes for the future on—our young people. Among all the challenges 

they face upon leaving high school, whether it’s to enter the workforce or go on to 

higher education, we must make sure that they are equipped with the skills necessary to be successful, to be engaged citizens, and to contribute to the well-being 

of their communities as well as our global economy. In reality this means that they 

must have access to high-quality and technology-rich educational experiences at the 

snap of the fingers—or really with the tap on a device. 

Maine was a forerunner in the one-to-one computing trend with then-Governor 

Angus King working hard to provide all our middle-school students with laptop computers. Since then we have seen the program blossom not only in Maine, but also 

in other states. As most anyone visiting their public library in the afternoon knows, 

many of these students head to the library after school to connect via the library 

Wi-Fi, to work on homework assignments and research resources, and to get assistance from librarians. Public libraries support learners at all ages and stages. We 

are the wrap-around support network that supports K12 students after the school 

bell rings and after the school doors close for the summer. Through data from the 

Pew Internet and American Life Project we know that 70 percent of parents report 

that their child visited the public library in the past 12 months.3 Of these, 77 percent of children ages 12–17 went to the library to do school work; this is true of 

a majority of all children. Together libraries and schools ensure that learners have 

access to technology-enabled and personalized educational opportunities during the 

school day—and beyond—via libraries. Through this partnership, our students have 

the broad support they need, and always have learning opportunities in front of 

them. 

In addition to supporting traditional K12 education, libraries are a key ingredient 

to the success of our non-traditional students, such as home-schooled students that 

now number more than 1.5 million. In the Santa Maria (Calif.) Public Library, for 

example, there are two classrooms in the library, run by local high school teachers, 

which are dedicated to the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District home 

school program. 

Students—particularly those in rural areas who may not have access to AP or 

specialized STEM classes—taking distance education courses to augment the local 

curriculum, regularly turn to the library for Internet access to take these classes. 

In many cases, libraries also serve as proctoring centers. We have numerous examples, such as in Florida, where K12 education is becoming a hybrid model that includes online learning. We anticipate seeing more of these students in our libraries. 

Many students also prepare and take practice tests—including for the GED or 

SAT—in our libraries, and we expect to see increased use as the GED test is revamped and more states switch to computerized GED testing, which will be only 

online beginning in 2014. 

Libraries also support adult learners and continuing education for those who may 

not have received the education they needed early in life or need to retool for new 

job prospects. At one of the branches of the Chattahoochee Valley Libraries system 

in Georgia, for example, a patron taking online classes needed to take an online, 

proctored test. This also involved a device to monitor him and take a fingerprint. 

The library staff set up the necessary device and installed the software he needed 

in one of the offices so that he would have privacy. The library reported he passed 

his test and is so pleased that he hasn’t yet stopped telling anyone who will listen, 

‘‘how much [the] library cares about our education.’’ Libraries are essential for making sure everyone has the skills they need to be part of the 21st century workforce. 

17 

We cannot contemplate fulfilling the needs of these students (or adult learners) 

unless our libraries have access to affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband 

connectivity. From my colleagues across the country I hear stories from their local 

libraries about needing more bandwidth. In Wisconsin one regional library system 

relied on the E-Rate program to add an additional 100 Mbps of bandwidth when 

the network reached capacity for its 49 member libraries. In Indiana, a library director said she used to think a T1 line was sufficient, but quickly found that it was 

nowhere near enough. The library doubled, then tripled its broadband capacity, then 

jumped to 15 Mbps as staff reported that patrons quickly used capacity as it was 

added. By revamping the E-Rate program we have an opportunity to address this 

shortfall and lay the groundwork to address future bandwidth needs. 

Now let’s look a little into the future. Just as libraries in 2013 are not the library 

we remember in 1998, we are beginning to see other emerging trends. Libraries are 

providing innovative services that are technology-rich and build on developing skills 

learned in the formal classroom setting. One form this is taking is the creation of 

digital media learning labs and makerspaces. For example, The Labs at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh offer young people an opportunity to produce rich, multimedia products using the latest technology tools while connecting these learning experiences directly back to school and careers. There is a specific emphasis on STEM 

education, and the Lab devotes significant resources to developing interest and ability in STEM areas. Digital learning labs are not confined to large urban libraries, 

however. The Allen County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Indiana, provides a 

maker space to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. In collaboration with 

the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services is funding the creation of up to 30 learning labs. 

Libraries are also beginning to leave their physical spaces and find opportunities 

to bring their services out into the community. In Philadelphia, the Free Library 

brings its services into the community, literally. The Hot Spot Techmobile brings 

Internet access, computers, and digital literacy training to where the city’s most vulnerable citizens are. 

These and services like them are sprouting up in libraries across the country and 

are part of the wave of the future in library service. Libraries feel the urgency that 

schools, colleges, and businesses feel. We must have students prepared for the competitive global economy as they are the key to the future success of our country. 

The momentum is now, and we must seize the opportunity to ensure the E-Rate 

program continues to support libraries and schools so that we can do our job by the 

current and future generations of young people. 

As with people, there are ‘‘early adopter’’ libraries beginning to leverage gigabit 

networks, as well as libraries that are farther down the technology curve. We must 

take lessons from both of these groups. And, we must find solutions that help libraries bridge this gap by ensuring libraries have access to affordable, high-capacity 

broadband no matter if they are in a rural remote or urban location or somewhere 

in between. 

As we embark on E-Rate 2.0 to keep pace with the technology platforms our students access today, as well as plan for tomorrow’s needs, we must lay the groundwork carefully and with purposeful goals. E-Rate has meant a world of difference 

to libraries, but it was designed in a vastly different technology landscape. We know 

now that the connectivity needed to support our K12 students and our broader communities is far greater than we might have imagined 17 years ago. We also know 

the need is far greater than the current program can support. 

The original mission of the E-Rate program—to provide libraries and schools with 

advanced services—is still valid and necessary. But the technological landscape continues to push the boundaries of libraries’ Internet capacities, and as Cisco’s Internet traffic measurement studies demonstrate, there is no end in sight to the demand 

for high-capacity Internet access. Many libraries are going to need fiber optic cable 

connections that can provide a ‘‘future-proof’’ platform for increasing capacity simply 

by changing the electronics at either end of the fiber. Investment in fiber will pay 

dividends for decades into the future and will ensure that libraries do not have to 

keep playing catch-up with the emergence of every new application. 

Due in no small part to the leadership of Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, the ERate program from its inception focused on providing high-capacity transmission 

services to libraries and schools. The purpose of the E-Rate program is to ensure 

that libraries and schools have the underlying telecommunications and broadband 

capacity to carry the next generation of Internet-dependent services. This focus on 

transmission provides a foundation for future growth and the development of new 

and innovative services. Without question the job is not over. As technologies continue to change, the E-Rate program must adapt as well. The current level of telecommunications services demands an E-Rate 2.0. Revisiting the E-Rate program 

18 

with the goal of bringing the highest capacity broadband possible into communities 

across the country was initiated through the National Broadband Plan in 2010 with 

the recommendation that communities have access to 4 gigabit service so that anchor institutions, like libraries, can provide advanced and innovative services to all 

who need them. 

The fundamental question before us today is how do we most effectively harness 

the opportunities enabled by technology for the benefit of our young people and, 

through them, our society? While our vision for the future may differ in some fashion, and the path forward may have variations, I think we can concur that it will 

be technology rich and heavily dependent on a robust broadband infrastructure. We 

already see a trend towards more diffuse networking capabilities in large swaths of 

the population which means more demand for technology-based services. 

This is an exciting opportunity for libraries as we contemplate new avenues to 

serve our communities. It’s a critical juncture for our Nation. For libraries, what we 

can achieve for K12 students and our communities depends to a great degree in the 

continued success of the E-Rate program which in turn depends up on how we 

shape E-Rate 2.0. 

In closing, libraries are vital community technology hubs, and we simply cannot 

allow inadequate bandwidth to be the factor that limits what our students and our 

Nation can achieve. We are at a turning point with ever changing technology and 

the need for a 21st century workforce where we can continue to watch demand overwhelm the E-Rate program or we can step boldly forward with a proactive vision 

for meeting the educational and other learning needs of our communities for the 

next 15 years and beyond. 

But like the true Mainer I am, I believe in not losing sight of what works while 

at the same time allowing for the space to for necessary changes. As we re-envision 

the E-Rate program for the future, we should be mindful of bringing along the successful elements and build on that firm foundation. Libraries are committed to making sure our communities have access to technology and broadband and the skills 

to turn these tools into opportunity for years to come. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the library experience at this formative 

time in the E-Rate program. I look forward to responding to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lord. 

And we go now to Mr. Patrick Finn, who is the Senior Vice President at a little company called Cisco Systems. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And he’s here today, standing in for Cisco’s 

Chairman and CEO, John Chambers, who could not be here today. 

And he’s a native West Virginian, so that—you know—— 

Mr. FINN. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN.—everything he says is bound to be truthful. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Please, sir. 

Mr. FINN. Good—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And we do have votes coming up, and so we want 

to maximize our time, as well—as best as we can. 

Mr. FINN. Great. 

The CHAIRMAN. Was I subtle? 

Mr. FINN. Say again? 

The CHAIRMAN. Was I subtle in saying that? 

Mr. FINN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK FINN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

U.S. PUBLIC SECTOR, CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Mr. FINN. Good afternoon, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, and members of the Committee. 

Our nation’s children are in the fight of their lives and their future livelihood. In this globally connected world, our children aren’t 

19 

just competing against the kids down the street for a job or a spot 

in a college, they’re competing with kids around the world. 

To compete and succeed, our children need to have the latest 

technology in their hands and access to the world’s libraries at 

their fingertips. And this access should not be limited to the privileged few, but to all kids, whether in San Jose or Shepherdstown 

or Sioux Falls. 

That’s where the E-Rate Program comes in. E-Rate is the foundation for Internet access in schools and libraries across America. 

Since its inception, 15 years ago, E-Rate has connected over 

100,000 schools to the Internet in all 50 States, and the results 

have been nothing short of amazing. After Hurricane Katrina, Cisco provided $80 million to fund the 

21st Century Schools Initiative and provide the latest network 

technology to rebuilt schools in Mississippi and Louisiana. In Jefferson Parish, the math scores of 8th-graders increased by 16 percent between 2005 and 2009. Significant gains were also seen in 

English, science, and social studies at all levels. And when Morrisville School District in North Carolina invested in wireless technology, the digital devices, and digital textbooks, individual students showed 20-to 40-percent improvements in reading, math, and 

science test scores. Graduation rates increased by 22 points. 

Similarly, videoconferencing technologies allow teachers in Long 

Branch and Fresno School Districts to share best practices in 

realtime. The results? Two thousand more students tested as proficient or advanced in math than the year before. That’s 2,000 lives 

improved through better education and better collaboration. 

So, the impact of E-Rate has been significant. But, the simple 

truth is, the technology has dramatically changed over the last 15 

years, and E-Rate needs to keep up with the times. School networks need to be able to handle increased traffic from video and 

digital textbooks, video collaboration, and iPads, laptops, and other 

mobile devices. 

Additionally, these networks should enable remote learning and 

remote network access, especially in rural areas. In these areas, 

graduation rates are less than the national average by almost 10 

points. This requires high-speed communications at speeds far 

greater than many schools and libraries have today. 

Furthermore, the current E-Rate Program primarily focuses on 

providing a broadband Internet connection to the school and, secondarily, to deploying a network within the school. This model is 

no longer sufficient. We need to consider all elements of a network, 

including broadband Internet access, individual school networks, 

and district-level wide-area networks. This is how businesses build 

networks to be cost-effective and to meet their communication 

needs. School networks should operate on the same principles. 

So, policymakers should consider three things in modernizing the 

E-Rate Program: 

First, program funding levels have barely changed since 1998, 

while the bandwidth and networking needs of the schools have dramatically increased. Today, 80 percent of schools and libraries believe that bandwidth does not meet their current needs. In the 

early years of the program, the funding met the majority of the requests from applicant schools and libraries. In recent years, fundVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
20 

ing has only been available for about half of the requested 

amounts. Funding levels should meet the needs of more schools 

and students, not fewer. 

Second, minimum bandwidth requirements should be adopted, 

based on the size of a school, to ensure that all schools have both 

in-building and district-wide networks that are capable of supporting modern educational technologies and devices. 

Third, current E-Rate rules which fund Internet connectivity first 

as Priority 1 services and then send the leftovers to fund prioritytwo networking inside the schools no longer make sense. Internet 

access is an important element of a network. Both school districts 

have to be able to access content of their own servers for distribution within the district, and the content is meaningless if it cannot 

be delivered to students and teachers through efficient in-building 

and district-wide networks. So, the outdated distinction between 

Priority 1 and Priority 2 should be eliminated. 

In summary, I believe that our nation’s children are in the fight 

for their futures in the context of a globally connected world in a 

rapidly changing technology environment. Modernizing the E-Rate 

Program is a critical investment, which will benefit our children 

and our country by creating a future where we build a workforce 

focused on innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. 

Thank you for your attention on this important matter today, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Finn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK FINN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

U.S. PUBLIC SECTOR CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Good afternoon Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune and Members of 

the Committee. 

Our nation’s children are in the fight of their lives. 

In this globally connected world, our children aren’t just competing against the 

kids down the street for a job, or a spot in college. They are competing with kids 

around the world. 

To compete and succeed, our children need to have the latest technology in their 

hands and access to the world’s libraries at their fingertips. 

And this access shouldn’t be limited to the privileged few, but to all kids—whether in Silicon Valley, or Shepherdstown, or Sioux Falls. 

And that’s where the E-Rate program comes in. E-Rate is the foundation for 

Internet access in public schools and libraries across America. Since its inception 

15 years ago, E-Rate has connected over 100,000 schools to the Internet—in all 50 

states. 

And the results from connecting schools have been nothing short of amazing. 

After Hurricane Katrina, Cisco created the $80 million 21st Century Schools initiative to provide the latest networking technology in rebuilt schools on the Gulf 

Coast. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 8th grade students’ math test scores jumped 

by 16 percent between 2005 and 2009. Significant gains were also seen in English, 

Science, and Social Studies at all grade levels. 

And when Mooresville School District in North Carolina invested in wireless networking, digital devices and digital textbooks as part of a turnaround program, individual students showed 20–40 percent improvement in reading, math and science 

test scores. The school district’s ranking jumped by 13 points, and graduation rates 

increased by 22 points. 

Similarly, video conferencing technologies allowed teachers in the Long Beach and 

Fresno school districts to share best practices in real time. The result: 2,000 additional students tested as proficient or advanced in math than the year before—that’s 

2,000 lives changed through better education and better collaboration. 

So the impact of E-Rate has been significant. 

But the simple truth is that technology has changed dramatically over the last 

15 years, and the E-Rate program needs to keep up with the times. 

21 

School networks need to be able handle increased traffic from digital books and 

video, video collaboration technologies, and a wide array of mobile devices like iPads 

and laptop computers. 

Additionally, these networks should enable remote learning and remote network 

access—especially for rural areas, where graduation rates are less than the national 

average by almost 10 points and access to specialized instructors who can offer 

courses not available everywhere is extremely limited. 

All this and more requires high-speed connections at speeds far greater than 

many schools and libraries offer today. 

Furthermore, the traditional E-Rate program primarily focused on providing a 

broadband Internet connection to a school, and secondarily on deploying a network 

within the school. This model is no longer sufficient. 

We need to consider all aspects of a network—including broadband Internet access, individual school networks, and district-level wide area networks—when designing a structure for E-Rate for the next 15 years. This is how medium and large 

businesses build networks to be cost effective and to meet their communications 

needs. School networks should operate on the same principles. 

So policymakers should do three things to modernize the E-Rate program. 

• First, program funding levels have barely changed since 1998 while the bandwidth and networking needs of the schools have dramatically increased. Today, 

80 percent of schools and libraries believe their broadband connections don’t 

meet their current needs. 

In the early years of the program, the funding met the majority of the requests 

from applicant schools and libraries. In recent years, funding has only been 

available for about half of the requested amounts. Funding levels should meet 

the needs of more schools and students, not fewer. 

• Second, minimum bandwidth requirements should be adopted, varying based on 

the size of a school, to ensure that all schools have both in-building and districtwide networks that are operationally capable of supporting modern education 

technology and devices. Just as our expectations for broadband have evolved, 

so too should the capacity of networks deployed in schools. 

• Third, current E-Rate rules—which fund Internet connectivity first as ‘‘Priority 

1’’ services and then send the leftovers to fund ‘‘Priority 2’’ networking inside 

the schools—no longer make sense. Internet access is an important element of 

a network, but districts have to be able to access content on their own servers 

for distribution within the district. And that content is meaningless to teachers 

and students if it cannot be delivered via effective in-building and district-wide 

networks. So the outdated distinction between Priority 1 and Priority 2 should 

be eliminated. 

In summary, I believe that our Nation’s children are in a fight for their future 

in the context of a global connected world, rapid changes in technology and the digital divide. Our view is that investment in technology and an enhancement of the 

E-Rate program will benefit our children and our country by creating a future where 

we are building a competitive workforce focused on innovation, competitiveness and 

job creation. 

The bottom line is this: Modernizing the E-Rate program is a critical investment 

in the future of our nation, and Cisco looks forward to working with this Committee, 

the FCC, and the schools to provide our children with the best education possible. 

Thank you for your attention to this important matter today, and I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much for that. 

And then, finally, Mr. James Coulter, who is the cofounder of 

TPG Capital. He and I had a conversation. He also, as importantly, 

or maybe more importantly to me, co-chairs the bilateral LEAD 

Commission, which is hooked up into this whole future of E-Rate 

discussion in a very major, major way—creative way. He has devoted a lot of time to this. He has spent a lot of time in other countries, so he has a sense of what they’re doing and what we’re not. 

We’re very glad that you’re here, sir. 

22 

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. COULTER, CO-CHAIR, LEAD 

COMMISSION (LEADING EDUCATION BY ADVANCING DIGITAL) 

Mr. COULTER. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

to you today. 

I want to begin by recognizing the extraordinary leadership Congress showed, nearly 20 years ago, in passing the E-Rate Program. 

Under the leadership of Chairman Rockefeller, former Senator 

Snowe, then-Congressman Markey, and others, the decision was 

made to invest in the technology of our schools and libraries. It’s 

widely acknowledged, by everyone on this panel, it was a monumental success. From 1996 to 2004, schools connected to the Internet increased from 14 percent to 95 percent. 

However, technology marches on, and so does the need for the 

technological support of our schools. Today, I urge you to strengthen and modernize the E-Rate Program. I believe that modernization of E-Rate is critical to providing our nation’s students with the 

education they need to compete in today’s technology-enabled economy. 

As the Chairman told you, I appear before you today as one of 

the four chairs of the bipartisan commission, Leading Education by 

Advancing Digital, or LEAD. The LEAD Commission was formed 

16 months ago to answer a challenge from the FCC and the Department of Education to create a national roadmap for the adoption of educational technology. 

Our work involved hundreds of interviews, product demonstrations, school visits, travels around the world. LEAD’s findings suggests we are at a transformative moment for our nation’s education 

system, a moment filled with promise, yet fraught with risk. Allow 

me to share four brief observations: 

First, an international educational technology race is swiftly developing: South Korea is eliminating paper textbooks by 2016; 100 

percent of Singaporean schools are wired for broadband; 100 percent of Korean teachers are technology-trained; Turkey is seeking 

to supply 10 million tablets to its students by 2015; next year, the 

Thailand Government will distribute hand-held computers to 13 

million children. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, Sputnik, striking fear into Americans that we could fall behind in the space race. LEAD’s work suggests this is a Sputnik moment in education. We risk losing the international race to educational technology. 

Second point, a technological tipping point is driving all this. 

Five years ago, I couldn’t have suggested this. The national implementation of educational technology would have been prohibitively 

expensive. Today, plummeting costs of tablet computers, Cloudbased software, and Wi-Fi make the implementation affordable. 

Technology-enabled schools today are driving extraordinary results. 

LEAD’s work shows the long-held promise of educational technology is poised to become an affordable reality. 

Our third observation. Without a clear, concerted action, we risk 

falling behind. America lacks a clear national plan for digital education. We approach the challenge at 16,000 separate school districts. Absent a national plan and collaborative action, we bear the 

risk of exacerbating the digital divide. Four weeks ago, LEAD reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
23 

leased a five-point national blueprint to accelerate the deployment 

of digital learning. The first, and, in my view, most critical, point 

in the plan is a call for a national effort to ensure sufficient 

connectivity to our schools. 

Chairman, as you’ve noted, in a time where we demand free 

broadband in our coffee shops, it’s shocking how little bandwidth 

is available in our schools. Only 23 percent of schools are wired for 

today’s broadband demands, and less than 10 percent are wired for 

2017 needs. It’s 100 percent in Korea and Singapore. 

We need to move the average schools from 20 megabits, enough 

bandwidth for a handful of students to watch one video, to 1 gigabit, enough for all the students in the school to take advantage 

of digital learning. 

In the last century, it would have been unimaginable to send our 

children to schools without heat and electricity. Broadband is, in 

our opinion, the heat and electricity of 21st-century learning. We 

are falling woefully short in filling our students’ needs. 

Our fourth, and final, observation. A modernized E-Rate is essential to address our infrastructure challenges. E-Rate successfully 

addressed the issue of access. We must now strengthen E-Rate to 

address the problems of capacity and speed. A modern E-Rate 

should focus on Internet infrastructure, increased transparency, be 

much easier to use, and should drive down school technology costs. 

In the private sector, we know we must invest in technological 

infrastructure to remain competitive. E-Rate can be the vehicle to 

encourage and support the same type of investment in our schools. 

In conclusion, our work demonstrates we create substantial longterm risks to our national competitiveness if we fail to invest in 

educational infrastructure. Just as America needed the Federal Aid 

Highway Act of 1956 to widen our roads, we need Federal action 

today to widen broadband in our schools. We invest tens of billions 

of dollars a year to reduce the traffic jams on our roads. Shouldn’t 

we invest a fraction of that, through E-Rate, to reduce the digital 

traffic jams developing in our schools? 

Chairman Rockefeller, today’s hearing is a call to action. We are 

facing a Sputnik moment in education. We must act. I urge this 

committee to continue its bipartisan tradition and support a modernized E-Rate. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

taking any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coulter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. COULTER, CO-CHAIR, LEAD COMMISSON

(LEADING EDUCATION BY ADVANCING DIGITAL) 

Introduction 

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Thune, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on this important national 

issue. 

My name is Jim Coulter and I am a father of three, a career businessman, an 

entrepreneur, and an American deeply passionate about our education system. 

I want to begin by recognizing the extraordinary bipartisan leadership that Congress showed nearly 20 years ago in passing and implementing the E-Rate program. 

It was under the leadership of Chairman Rockefeller, former-Senator Snowe, thenCongressman Markey and others that the decision was made to initially invest in 

technology in our schools and libraries. It is widely acknowledged that E-Rate has 

been a monumental success: from 1996, when E-Rate was first implemented, to 

24 

1 Rosenworcel, Jessica. ‘‘Remarks of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.’’ Washington Education Technology Policy Summit. Washington, D.C.. 11 Apr 2013. Address. 2 EducationSuperHighway, Internet Infrastructure for America’s K–12 Students, 2012. 3http://www.leadcommission.org/ 

4Digital Trends, South Korean school textbooks will be all digital by 2015, July 5, 2011 5http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/news/Pages/200513-turkey-fatih-project-tenderprocess-start.aspx 6http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/asia-pacific/tablet-computers-thrust-thailand-classrooms-into-digital-era/#.UeQtk5zfLKc 7OECD Program for International Student Assessment. ‘‘What Students Know and Can Do: 

Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science.’’ 2009 Database. http:// 

www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf 

2004, schools connected to the Internet increased from 14 percent to more than 95 

percent.1 This Committee’s support of the E-Rate program has provided tremendous 

benefits for rural and urban schools, public and private. 

However, just as technology marches on, so does the need for technological support for our schools. Today, modern teaching methods utilizing digital tools are 

poised to revolutionize education around the world. Initially, technology was only in 

the principal’s office; now it is on the teacher’s desk and is moving into the hands 

of students. We are increasing our bandwidth users from five million teachers and 

administrators to 55 million students. Sadly, in spite of E-Rate’s success, today 

fewer than 25 percent of our Nation’s schools have the high-speed bandwidth necessary to support this technology evolution.2

I am here today to urge you in the strongest terms to support an expanded and 

strengthened E-Rate program. I believe expanding and strengthening E-Rate is a 

critical component for providing current and future generations the education and 

skills they need to compete in today’s global and technologically-enabled economy. 

LEAD Commission Findings 

I was invited to appear before you today as one of the four co-chairs of a bipartisan commission, Leading Education by Advancing Digital, or ‘‘LEAD’’. The LEAD 

Commission is also chaired by Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, 

Margaret Spellings, former Secretary of Education, and Jim Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media. LEAD was formed over 16 months ago to answer a challenge 

from the FCC and the Department of Education to create a national roadmap for 

the adoption of educational technology. We released the LEAD Commission recommendations four weeks ago.3

The LEAD Commission’s work involved hundreds of interviews and product demonstrations, school visits, and travels throughout the United States and around the 

world. We spoke with a broad cross-section of teachers, parents, students, government officials, school administrators, and educational technology industry leaders. 

This extensive work has made it clear to me that we are at a critical, transformative 

moment for our Nation’s education system, a moment fraught with both opportunity 

and risk. Allow me to share four observations. 

LEAD’s First Observation: Other countries have moved rapidly and decisively to 

make educational technology a national priority. 

I have met with Education Ministers in Singapore and South Korea who report 

100 percent broadband wiring of their schools. South Korea is eliminating paper 

textbooks in 2016. One hundred percent of Singaporean teachers are technology 

trained.4 Over the last few months, Turkey’s Prime Minister has been on a tour to 

identify a technology provider that will supply 10 million tablets to Turkish students by 2015.5 Thailand’s ‘‘One Tablet Per Child’’ policy aims to reduce the education gap between the Nation’s urban rich and rural poor. By the end of 2014, the 

Thai government will have distributed handheld computers to 13 million school children.6

These countries believe the earlier they put technology in the hands of students 

and make it an active part of their education the better prepared those students 

will be to participate in an increasingly tech savvy work force. 

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, ‘‘Sputnik’’, into space, striking fear in Americans that we could lose the space race and nationally spurring us 

into action. LEAD’s observation of initiatives around the world has led us to believe 

today is a ‘‘Sputnik Moment’’ for education in this country. Our country already does 

not perform well on international tests, ranking 31st in math, 23rd in science and 

17th in reading.7 If we do not find the national will to move forward with technology 

in the classroom, we risk falling further behind and creating a challenge to our longterm competiveness. The E-Rate program we are discussing today can and should 

play a vital role in meeting this challenge. 

25 

8Mooresville Graded School District’s Digital Conversion Report, April 2011. 

9 EducationSuperHighway, Internet Infrastructure for America’s K–12 Students, 2012. 10 EducationSuperHighway, Internet Infrastructure for America’s K–12 Students, 2012. 

LEAD’s Second Observation: There is evidence that we are at a technological and 

teaching practice tipping point that will allow the long-held promise of educational technology to become a transformative and affordable reality. 

Five years ago, the national implementation of educational technology in a largescale fashion would have been prohibitively expensive with $1,000 work-stations, 

shrink-wrapped sub-par software and torn up walls to wire school buildings. Today, 

thanks to the plummeting costs of tablet computers, innovative cloud-based software 

and enterprise Wi-Fi technology, implementation is affordable and achievable. 

Mooresville, North Carolina, a community outside of Charlotte, has risen as an 

example of the power of a digitally enabled school district. Walk into any classroom 

in Mooresville and you will find a student with a laptop working with a teacher 

equipped and trained to use the latest online tools to provide students with a personalized interactive learning experience. One of North Carolina’s poorer school districts, Mooresville has risen to become one of its most effective and efficient. Since 

making the digital transition three years ago, the district pass rate on state tests 

in reading, math and science has increased from 73 percent to 88 percent.8 In addition, Mooresville ranks 100th out of 115 districts in North Carolina in terms of dollars spent per student, but is now third in test scores and second in graduation 

rates.8 Mooresville and numerous other innovative school districts are showing us 

the technology exists, teachers are deploying it with vigor and creativity, and learning environments are being transformed for the better with measurable improvement in student achievement. 

LEAD’s Third Observation: While the U.S. remains a hub of educational innovation, we face the risk of falling far behind in the deployment of digital learning technologies. 

We are uncoordinated and lack a clear national plan for digital education. We currently approach the challenge as 16,000 independent school districts. Absent a national plan and collaborative action, we bear the risk of further exacerbating the 

digital divide that troubles the Nation’s poor and rural communities. 

The primary reason for this national risk is that our school technology infrastructure is inadequate to meet the demands of 21st century learning. In today’s world, 

where we expect fast Wi-Fi access with our coffee, it is troubling how many of our 

schools rely on slow and outdated Internet connections. According to 

EducationSuperHighway, a highly-respected non-profit focused on removing the 

roadblocks to high-speed Internet in our schools, only 23 percent of schools are sufficiently wired for today’s broadband demands and less than 10 percent are wired 

with the broadband that will be needed in 2017.9

Four weeks ago, LEAD released a five-point national blueprint to accelerate the 

positive deployment of digital learning. The plan is both ambitious and attainable, 

offering significant long-term gains for our children. We have included the blueprint 

as an addendum to this statement. In summary, our five points are: 

• Broaden School Broadband 

• Deploy Devices Nationally by 2020 

• Accelerate Digital Curriculum Adoption 

• Fund and Celebrate Model Schools 

• Train Teachers for Digital teaching 

It is no accident that our first and perhaps most critical point is a call for a national effort to broaden the total broadband available in our schools. According to 

EducationSuperHighway, broadband availability in our schools must increase from 

two and a half terabits today to 55 terabits by 2017.10 In other words, we need to 

move the average school from 20 megabytes, or enough bandwidth for a handful of 

students to stream a single video, to one gigabyte, or enough for all students in the 

school to take advantage of digital learning. In the last century, it would have been 

unimaginable to send our children to schools without heat and electricity. 

Broadband will be the ‘‘heat and electricity’’ of 21st century learning solutions. It 

is imperative that we unlock the promise of digital learning: broadband is the key. 

America is known world-wide as the home of information technology and the 

birthplace of tomorrow’s innovations. However, our connectivity limitations and our 

lack of national coordination on this issue will have a direct impact on learning outcomes, the education ecosystem and our Nation’s ability to prepare current and fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
26 

11http://www.artba.org/faqs/#7 

ture generations for a highly competitive global workforce. If we don’t act now, we 

risk losing our position as the global leader. 

LEAD’s Fourth Observation: E-Rate provides an invaluable tool for addressing the 

Nation’s educational technology infrastructure challenges. It is time for a coherent, collective effort to modernize E-Rate and to implement the digital learning 

technology essential for 21st century schools. 

We are fortunate as a country that Senator Rockefeller and others saw fit to lead 

the Nation’s schools and libraries into the digital era with E-Rate in the 1990s. 

Likewise, the country will be well served if this committee supports the efforts to 

upgrade and modernize E-Rate currently in front of the FCC. We would hope E-Rate 

modernization would reflect the following objectives. 

First, E-Rate has already successfully addressed the issue of access; E-Rate must 

now address the problem of capacity and speed. We recommend E-Rate update its 

goals to focus on Internet infrastructure. Curriculum development will lag and private sector investment will languish if the infrastructure remains inadequate. It will 

simply be less attractive for educators and businesspeople to drive educational technology innovations if only 10 to 20 percent of schools are wired to use them. 

Second, we need to enable districts to invest in fiber connections to their schools. 

E-Rate currently supports operating expenditures but does not incentivize long-term 

investment in fiber. Businesses regularly make the decision to invest upfront capital 

in order to significantly lower ongoing operating expenses. We must empower 

schools to do the same in order to get them the bandwidth they need while maintaining a reasonable E-Rate budget. 

Third, we hope modernization of the program will increase transparency, simplicity and accountability. We need an E-Rate that encourages broadband adoption 

because it is easy to use. We need an E-Rate that makes data and pooled purchasing available to schools, allowing them to drive down costs. 

This country has a long and successful history of Federal action to aid infrastructure development and ensure universal access to communication technologies. Just 

as America needed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 to widen our roads, we 

need Federal action today to widen broadband in our schools. If America can invest 

tens of billions of dollars a year to reduce traffic jams on our roads, shouldn’t we 

invest a fraction of that to reduce traffic jams in our schools? 11 E-Rate is the key. 

It worked to solve the problem of access. We can call on it again to solve the educational broadband needs of our country. 

Conclusion 

While technology is not a panacea, it transforms almost every industry it touches. 

In my day job as an investor I realize that it would be long-term economic suicide 

not to provide our companies with the technological infrastructure and tools to compete in an increasingly global and competitive marketplace. Likewise, it would create substantial long-term risks to our national competitiveness if we fail to make 

a national investment in educational technology infrastructure. Fortunately, E-Rate 

gives us an affordable and effective path to make sure we give schools and teachers 

the digital learning tools they need to prepare our children and our country for the 

future. 

We Americans pride ourselves on always being solution seekers, no matter how 

difficult the problem. Yes, our U.S. education system faces significant tests and 

tough international competition, but just like after the Sputnik launch, we as a nation can rise to the challenge. Today, we are facing a ‘‘Sputnik Moment’’ in education. It is time for our country to collectively say ‘‘modernizing our schools is a 

national priority.’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to responding 

to any questions. 

For more information, please visit the LEAD Commission website: http:// 

www.leadcommission.org/ 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Jim Coulter. 

I should inform my colleagues—is that a vote? A vote is just imminent, and—oh, 10 minutes, OK. What I plan to do is miss the 

first vote. And so, I will stay here, unless this is not agreeable to 

my colleagues, so we can keep this going. The upside is that we 

keep it going; the downside is, if you’re voting, you—and you probVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
27 

ably don’t want to miss the first vote—then the second vote, I will 

go to. But, we’ll do the best we can. 

Let me just start with a—sort of a catch-me question. The thing 

that’s amazing to me is that, when we started this program, when 

you said ‘‘E-Rate and connectivity,’’ everybody assumes, myself included, that that means that the whole thing was working, that 

there was a teacher there, the software was there, there was a 

computer there, et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, that was wholly 

untrue. It just meant that it was physically available, it was wired 

to receive any of those necessary parts to the E-Rate. And so, Ms. 

Lord, when you talked about, you know, how far we’ve come and 

how far we have to go, I always try to bear that in mind. 

So, I would like to ask, Mr. Coulter, if—you talked about the 

speed—what, we get up to 100 times faster speed return if we do 

the right things, if it’s in our will—and also the new technology. 

And then you said something that was very important to me, and 

that is that the competition between technology companies is such 

that prices are coming down, to the extent that it’s becoming more 

affordable. Could you expand, starting on that last one, and then 

talking a little bit about what we have to add on to the 

connectivity, which has since been supplemented by States and privates, you know, others, to give us computers and teacher training? 

I know not. 

Mr. COULTER. Yes. If you look the LEAD plan, it has five parts. 

A necessary condition to any of those parts is that the schools are 

wired. If you are an investor and are thinking about investing in 

educational technology, it’s hard to make that investment when 

you realize only 10 percent of your customers could use it, even if 

you had the perfect product today. 

So, I would note that E-Rate was a success. And at the time it 

was built, these technologies were not available at a cost that 

would have made sense for schools. So, E-Rate did the right thing 

at the right time. We’re asking it to do the right thing at this right 

time now. 

The technological change from wired walls to Wi-Fi and tablets— 

we have to remember, the iPad was delivered for the first time in 

April 2010. So, this change is new, and people around the world 

are realizing that it will bring down costs to the point where educational technology can be delivered within textbook budgets. 

That’s a very different situation than where we were when E-Rate 

was first created. 

In addition, competition for this market, if we get it to scale, will 

drive down costs farther. It’s interesting to see what Turkey is 

doing. The Prime Minister of Turkey is in Silicon Valley, touring 

technology companies, asking them to compete with each other for 

a $7-billion contract to take American technology over into the 

schools of Turkey. I guarantee you, they will get a pretty good price 

when they are asking for that size of a technological contract. 

So, it is a new era. E-Rate has to reflect that new era. And the 

good news about the new era is, the technology that you’ve enabled 

over time has come to a cost area that it can now be a reality within our nation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

I would call upon my friend and colleague, Senator Thune. 

28 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would direct this to the panel, whoever would like to comment. E-Rate support is not based on the actual cost of delivering 

the service, but rather provides discounts based on the percentage 

of a school’s student population eligible for the National School 

Lunch Program, with a small additional increase for rural schools. 

As we discuss modernizing E-Rate, and specifically setting bandwidth goals, does that current distribution method equitably provide for schools that may have fewer poor students but dramatically higher costs of service? 

Whomever. 

The CHAIRMAN. I join in that question. We both suffer, as rural 

States, particularly under the sequester. 

Mr. COULTER. As you know, I’m a big fan of E-Rate, but I also 

believe, in business, that there are few things that can’t be made 

better and more efficient. I think, as you open up E-Rate in the 

FCC process, issues of fairness should be looked at in all areas— 

across States, across rural and non-rural, across poor and wealthy. 

And, just as technology has changed over time, there may be good 

ideas that are available to you today to address some of these 

issues, Senator. 

I would highlight, however, that one thing we’ve learned in business is, if you have something that works, don’t mess with it too 

much. So, while we look for an even better and modernized E-Rate, 

I hope we will learn from the success we’ve had. 

Mr. FINN. Senator, it’s a good question, and I’m not an expert on 

the distribution of various schools, but what I would say is, the recommendation that we’ve made and are focused on is really to build 

the minimum standards in bandwidth for schools based on the 

number of students, whether they be in a rural area or an urban 

area, so that we’re actually not just driving the connectivity to the 

school, we’re driving the connectivity and the benefits to the student. And I think that that’s really the clear focus as it relates to: 

How do we ensure that all students are participating in the technology advancements that can be benefited from a new E-Rate Program? 

The CHAIRMAN. Please. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. I would just say that my direct experience over the 

last 15 years in our district is, it’s a—our district covers 1,036 

square miles in southwest Louisiana, so we have urban areas, we 

have suburban areas, and we have deep rural areas, down in the 

Bayou and in the rice fields. And what E-Rate has done with that 

formulaic approach to it is that we have been able to build out, in 

last-mile initiatives, to our rural communities, where, I think, as 

Mr. Coulter or Mr. Finn expanded upon, that it has been a community-wide effort. So, as we have grown and had that connectivity 

to our schools, the fiber has been laid that’s allowed the entire community to grow and expand and have opportunities that were not 

there before. 

So, I would say, for the most part, the approach is working well. 

I think there’s some tinkering to be done with that. But, I have 

confidence that the FCC and USAC, with the massive amount of 

data that they have, can examine and look at the metrics and 

29 

make good, reasonable, reasoned proposals that will do this last bit 

of work that’s to be done. 

But, we have gone tremendous lengths to reach out into our 

rural communities, I know, in our state, and it has made a difference—for the economic development in the entire state. 

The CHAIRMAN. In order of appearance, the next question will 

come from Senator Schatz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member. 

Thank you, Chairman, for working on this over the years. Certainly, the State of Hawaii, over the last couple of years, has really 

benefited through our applications. And, in the interest of the—in 

the interest of time, I’ll go straight to one of my questions. 

The FCC’s definition of ‘‘rural areas for schools and libraries’’ is 

one that is located in a non-metropolitan county, as classified by 

OMB’s list of metropolitan statistical areas. The problem with that 

is that the island of Oahu, which contains Honolulu, the entire island is considered urban, which is just not true, as a matter of 

common sense. And so, I wonder if any of the testifiers could offer 

some insights with respect to what kinds of modifications could 

more accurately reflect the true nature of communities and how 

broadband ought to be distributed through those communities. 

Ms. LORD. I would only respond, Senator, that that’s a very complex question, and I hope that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

which the FCC is releasing soon about both the E-Rate Program, 

would give us a chance to study that and address it. 

The complexities of the E-Rate Program are, as you well know, 

that if you change one tiny thing, there can easily be a domino effect in unanticipated consequences. So, I wouldn’t hesitate to give 

any—I would hesitate to give any specifics here. 

Senator SCHATZ. I just have one quick additional question, for 

Mr. Coulter. You said something very intriguing, which is that, 

‘‘Educational technology can eventually be delivered within the 

textbook budget.’’ In that, do you—are you talking about just curricula and programs, or do you imagine that eventually it will be— 

it’ll basically be an all-in cost covered by the current cost of textbooks? 

Mr. COULTER. The most recent data I have on this is—L.A. Unified School District did a recent tablet RFP. They required those 

tablets to be loaded with usable curriculum; in this case, from 

Pearson. Those tablets were delivered for under $700—about 

$680—include with insurance, et cetera, fully loaded with curriculum, insured for 3 years. So, think of that as $230 a year. If 

you look at the textbook budgets in the school district, that’s below 

the textbook budget. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Schatz follows:] 

30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, for holding this hearing and your leadership 

on the E-Rate program. Every student should have the opportunity to develop the 

skills that they need to be competitive in the workplace, no matter where they live 

or go to school. The E-Rate program is the cornerstone of bringing technology to 

schools and libraries. 

Rural areas in Hawaii rely on E-Rate to provide telephone and Internet 

connectivity. Schools located in these areas tend to have low-income communities 

where 60 percent of students are on the free and reduced price lunch program. Last 

year, the state received record breaking funds—$17.8 million—through E-Rate because of its efforts to upgrade the network in schools. On the rural western coast 

of Oahu, E-Rate has helped to implement network upgrades that provide real time 

data to personalize instruction for the student. According to Wendy Takahashi, 

Principal of Nanakuli Elementary School: 

‘‘Now every student has access to online instruction and teachers have access 

to student data throughout the school day. These upgrades have provided wireless access to the entire school, whereas previously our coverage was inconsistent and sporadic throughout the day.’’ 

The E-Rate program has also modernized schools’ daily operations. School attendance, announcements, and student assessments are done electronically. As an island 

state, videoconferencing has become an essential communication tool for teachers 

and principals. For instance, one Complex Area in Maui County includes schools 

from West Maui, Hana (East Maui), and the islands of Molokai and Lanai. With 

budget shortfalls and the high cost of inter-island flights, video conferencing provides ease of access and ultimately saves faculties’ time and schools’ money. 

Digital learning technologies are transforming the classroom learning experience. 

The Hawaii Department of Education is looking to purchase and distribute digital 

instructional materials and devices to each student. For students where English is 

their second language, the state is implementing an online learning program to increase their English proficiency. 

One of the state’s goals is to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics proficiency statewide. E-Rate makes it possible for students to access STEM 

carts, which provide interactive lessons in science, mathematics, and engineering to 

students. As the state continues to implement digital curriculum, more robust levels 

of connectivity are needed. 

In Hawaii, I have heard of instances of when classrooms are not able to use the 

Internet while other grade levels are conducting online testing because of insufficient bandwidth. Clearly, we must continue to work toward increasing the bandwidth in order for schools to handle increased traffic to their networks. This is why 

I support President Obama’s ConnectED Initiative to connect 99 percent of students 

to broadband and high-speed wireless. Improving connectivity in the classroom is 

a critical step to preparing our students to compete in the global economy. 

I appreciate the witnesses for testifying today, and I look forward to working with 

Chairman Rockefeller and the FCC to update the E-Rate program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Based on my briefing, it would have been nice to have somebody 

from the FCC that could maybe answer these questions directly, 

but it does look like there are some problems with the program. 

For example, that apparently there is currently $5 billion in the ERate account. There are certainly backlogs, in terms of appeals that 

date back to 2003, a backlog for funding commitments go back to 

2010. 

Are any—anybody on the panel aware of some of those problems 

with the program that they can speak to? 

31 

Mr. COULTER. As I said earlier, I’d be surprised if there weren’t 

a number of things we could do to make this longstanding, successful program more efficient. 

One of the things I’d note—and it’s perhaps a bit ironic—is that 

E-Rate is predominantly a paper-based program for applications. 

And those paper-based applications have become so complicated 

that one estimate has $50 million to $100 million of consultants are 

used by schools just to figure out how to use the paper-based processes. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, you’re—— 

Mr. COULTER. I’m sure that—— 

Senator JOHNSON. Right, you’re dealing with a Federal program, 

here, and that’s part of my problem, my skepticism of this. 

Mr. COULTER. I think that can be fixed in this process. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, that—you know, I hear that all the time, 

you know, that we just—there’s a government reform right around 

the corner. And it’s amazing how many decades have gone by without that reform. 

Mr. Finn, how much—how many sales does Cisco have to the 

school market? 

Mr. FINN. Well, we don’t break it up specifically by segment. I 

am responsible for U.S. public sector, which includes the State/local 

education and the Federal business. And our business is about a 

$5-billion business. 

Senator JOHNSON. Out of that $5 billion, can you give me an estimate of how much of that is funded by local school districts, possibly states, versus the Federal Government? 

Mr. FINN. I don’t have that breakdown with me, Senator. I’d be 

happy to provide that to you and the Committee. 

That’s not the way we measure our business. Our real focus—— 

Senator JOHNSON. OK, the reason I ask is, as I look at the figures I have, of total spending on education, we spend an enormous 

amount on education in this country—over a trillion dollars this 

year. About 6 percent comes from the Federal Government. I, personally, think education is, by and large, a local issue. And when 

you take a look at the problems in the E-Rate Program—again, you 

know, I mean, we’re spending a couple of billion dollars, there’s a 

$5-billion backlog; it’s a paper system. I’m not quite sure why we’d 

want to expand this program if it’s not really working all that well. 

And I have to also challenge—when you take a look at test scores 

over the years—I was involved, in a local basis, in local education. 

We did something called an Academic Excellence Initiative. This 

was probably about 10 years ago. I typed into the computer—back 

then, probably Yahoo!—‘‘educational productivity.’’ Zero results. 

So, I guess my—I understand it all makes wonderful sense and 

technology can drive productivity. I just don’t see the results, truthfully—I mean, I see anecdotal evidence, but, I mean, overall, test 

scores are flat. I guess I’d to talk to Dr. Abshire about that. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Thank you, Senator. I’d be happy to comment on 

that. 

Let me, first, begin by saying that I would say that the E-Rate 

Program, in its infancy, which—I began processing applications as 

a local district person responsible for that in year one—has undergone what I—substantive changes, in terms of paperwork. As an 

32 

example, last year, when we filed our applications, we did not use 

any paper at all. Many, many applicants have gone to the online. 

While the paper option is still there, I would say that, for the most 

part, that’s people that are just getting into the program. Those of 

us that have been filing for several years, USAC has made tremendous progress, in terms of their online applications process. 

What used to take us, really, 2 weeks, myself and an administrative assistant, now took us, this year, about 4 hours. And so, the 

productivity and the efficiency component for the online application 

has been considerably improved. And that’s come from the field, 

people like myself, practitioners that do this work every day and 

every year, that have made recommendations to the FCC and to 

USAC, and that’s begun to tighten up. 

So, in that aspect, I think we’ve seen growth. Does that mean 

that we don’t have improvements that could be, and should be, 

made? Absolutely not. But, this is a continuous improvement process. And, from when we began to where we are now, the two processes don’t even resemble each other. I’d take that for your consideration. 

Senator JOHNSON. Why shouldn’t this be, really, a local control 

and local funding, where—again, if it’s locally controlled, locally 

funded, aren’t you going to make sure that you’re going to have the 

most efficient and effective system—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Well—— 

Senator JOHNSON.—versus just relying on Federal Government 

funding? 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Well, let me share with you, in terms of local control—all of us have local technology plans that are adopted by our 

community and our board. And those plans drive our E-Rate application process. 

So, as an example, my district was one that was put through a 

full audit, several years ago. And part of that audit required going 

back into the board minutes and me providing the alignment between our local-controlled plan, funding, cofunding, and the pieces 

that we requested for E-Rate, and then went down into the schools 

to look at how the equipment was being used, how were we supporting it, in terms of teacher training, computers at the end of the 

wire, and professional development for all of our staff. And so, you 

know, we came out and reported very well, because we had that 

local decision. 

It is my decision, along with my staff and our board, as to what 

we apply for, in terms of needs assessment and based on the types 

of connectivity and digital content that we need, and online assessment. 

So, I would say that there is a great deal of effort being expended 

locally to make those decisions, and only requesting from E-Rate 

what we can support, the non-discounted portion. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. 

Thank you—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. I hope that helps, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

33 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would begin by taking issue, with all due respect, with my colleague from Wisconsin and his statement that the program isn’t 

working all that well. You know, at a time when we bemoan and 

criticize government, this program is a real American success 

story—the government providing resources and shared responsibility for a means of communication that is vital to many underserved and technological needy parts of our country. 

So, I want to thank and commend the folks who are here today 

to give us their insights and to reinforce that view. 

I want to thank our Chairman for really pioneering and championing this program, E-Rate, along with a new member of our 

committee, Senator Markey, who is attending this committee for 

the first time. But, most particularly, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

holding today’s hearing so that we can amplify and really emphasize the importance of improving the program, as our witnesses 

have said, where it’s necessary to do it, to make a success story 

even more successful. 

And certainly in Connecticut, the E-Rate Program has helped 

provide $370 million to Connecticut schools and libraries in need, 

connecting communities and improving learning opportunities. The 

impact is not on a few handfuls of students here and there; it is 

literally on tens of millions of students across the country. 

And rather than focusing on the negative, I really want to elicit 

from you, perhaps, your comments on how the application process 

for these communities can be made less time-consuming and burdensome. I’m going to be limited, in terms of my time, but I hope 

you will give us—both you, Ms. Lord and Dr. Abshire, and our two 

other witnesses the benefit of your views on that subject, because 

you’ve really been there in the trenches, working for this program. 

And I want to just emphasize another point that has been made, 

because I am Chairman of a subcommittee called Competitiveness, 

Innovation, and Export Promotion. And if there is an area where 

we need to be more competitive—and both of you put your finger 

exactly on that point—other countries are moving ahead of us, 

which is just unconscionable for the greatest nation in the history 

of the world, the most technologically advanced—to have its children learn less than other children through this means of technology, is just unforgivable. 

So, maybe if you could share your insights, Ms. Lord and Dr. 

Abshire. 

Ms. LORD. Thank you. I’ll try to be fast. 

In Maine, we give a tremendous amount of support to our libraries and our schools with the paperwork. And, in fact, we do a 

consortial application that includes over 900 schools and libraries. 

And what the schools and libraries need to do is sign a letter of 

agency, that’s very carefully crafted, that gives the Maine School 

Library Network, which is run by a group called Network Maine, 

the authority to apply for the Federal E-Rate Program on their behalf. So, they have to do practically nothing; they have to sign a 

letter. This works really, really well for us. There’s no school or liVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
34 

brary in Maine, to the best of my knowledge, that’s ever been accused of waste, fraud, or abuse. 

And the reason that we are so pleased to hear your words and 

so desperate for E-Rate 2.0 is that we still have lines, waiting for 

our computers, just as Senator Rockefeller said. We still have video 

latency, where a student can be taking a course and all of a sudden 

the video freezes and you have to wait for it to proceed. These are 

kids that are used to HDTV. That doesn’t impress them at all. We 

still have time limits on our computer use in our libraries. The 

Bangor Public Library sees 800 people a day, and so they have to 

limit the amount of time anybody can be on a computer. That’s a 

little bit aside from your question, but I think—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. No, it’s very valuable. Thank you. 

Ms. LORD. Thank you, sir. I think it depends on how much support the State can give, and we give a tremendous amount of support. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Senator, thank you for the opportunity. 

I would say, just as our country has changed and evolved, our 

schools have changed and evolved, and E-Rate is changing and 

evolving. And your question around, you know, ‘‘What are the 

things that we could do?’’—one of the things, I think, that would 

be very helpful—and many groups that I’m a member of and, you 

know, have worked with these organizations, that are my peers— 

ISTE and CoSN—we’ve proposed the concept of an Evergreen 470, 

which would allow those of us that have long-term contracts already in place for pieces of business, that that process would be 

shortened in somewhat—a little bit more concise around doing 

that. And I know that’s being considered. 

There’s—you know, we have a great opportunity, with the opening of the rulemaking process. And I know that those of us that 

do this work in the field every single day, and have done it for— 

you know, going on two decades now, have a lot of feedback and 

input that we’re going to provide to that process. And we are delighted that the FCC and USAC will afford us those opportunities. 

The other thing I was going to just mention very briefly is what 

you mentioned about the global competitives and the concept that 

we cannot fall behind. In my role as the past Board Chair of the 

Consortium for School Networking, which is the membership organization for my peers—have the opportunity to very—visit South 

America, spent some time in Uruguay. I was blown away by the 

concept of—every student in a very poor country now has a device, 

and they have built a wireless grid across that country. Wherever 

those children are, and their parents, they have access to a 

broadband connection for learning, 24/7. While they have not 

eclipsed us, in terms of learning capacity yet, they are on their 

way. And to drive down the road and to see very, very poor communities, that really didn’t even have basic sanitation, and the children were sitting out on porch steps, connected with a device, 

working at 7 or 8 or 9 o’clock at night—was something that was 

a wake-up call for me, as a person who has spent 40 years being 

very passionate about children and learning. 

35 

And we have our work cut out for us, but, as you said, this is 

the greatest nation in the world, and, if not now, when, and, if not 

us, who? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I thank all of you for being here today. I 

hope the FCC hears you and hears us. And thank you. 

Thank you, to our Chairman, for your historic contribution. 

Thank you. Forgive me, I’ve got to go vote. 

The CHAIRMAN. You’ve got to scram. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I guess I get to ask a question, don’t I? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. A couple of things I’d like to clarify. We always 

talk about America falling behind. And then we have plenty of data 

which shows that that’s happening in math and science and other 

things—languages, whatever. But, then when I hear that South 

Korea and others are—actually, I remember when we—when the 

E-Rate started—something I still haven’t figured out; one of you 

can help me on this—there was a lot of, sort of, fulminating and 

‘‘What’s going on here?’’ and, you know, ‘‘Where’s the computer and 

where’s the teacher?’’ Houston went wireless and was—achieved 

100 connectivity in one day. I don’t know how that was possible, 

but that’s an example of America not falling behind. Whoever that 

superintendent was, it—of education in Houston—he did something 

extraordinary. 

So, when we talk about falling behind—Mr. Coulter, I’ll call 

again on you and others—Korea, Japan, other countries—it’s not 

really a matter of national pride. You know, if somebody doesn’t 

score a touchdown, it isn’t any big deal. In fact, I was very pleased 

to read—I think it was in the Wall Street Journal the other day— 

that, in this mania of sports which has overtaken our nation, to the 

detriment of education, only 4 percent of Americans watch something called baseball; 2 percent watch hockey. Puts things in perspective. Everybody goes to school. 

So, what—I’ll go again to you, Mr. Coulter—what, on the international side—what price do we pay, in terms of not being able to 

do what others have either achieved or are much more aggressively 

going after than we are? 

Mr. COULTER. As I said, I had my Sputnik moment when I sat 

with the Minister of Education and Technology—note that’s a single agency—in Korea, and I asked him where he goes for innovation. Without a moment of hesitation, he went—he said he goes to 

the United States. 

So, we remain the hub of educational technology innovation. But, 

in many industries, we have a—seen situations—semiconductors, 

for example—where things invented here are deployed, creating 

jobs in other countries. And we bear that risk here, that our innovation will be better deployed elsewhere. 

So, essentially, the risk to us is not that they are more innovative than we over time, I believe; it’s but that they have a better 

deployment mechanism. And the reason is, Korea acts centrally on 

education. I think we have been very well served by being 16,000 

individual school districts, on most issues—local involvement in 

education. However, technology requires scale. And places like 

Korea and Turkey can scale more quickly. 

36 

So, the long-term risk to us is this. When I spoke to the Korean 

Education Minister and asked him about, you know, how he was 

thinking about the tradeoffs between paper and technology, he 

stopped me and said, ‘‘I just believe that if we get technology into 

our kids’ hands, they will do wonderful things with them—with it, 

and they will be more prepared for the jobs of the future.’’ 

Our children today live largely in a technologically enabled 

world, and we send them to school with 40-pound backpacks filled 

with paper. And that risk to us will play out in any number of 

ways. We bear the risk of losing a generation of technologically enabled students and a technologically enabled workforce if we don’t 

act more quickly than we have so far. 

So, that’s the long-term risk, is that our skills and innovation 

somehow fall behind. They haven’t, so far. I hope they won’t in the 

future. But, this is an investment we can make to protect that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for that. 

It occurs to me—and Senator Ayotte has come in, and I want to 

call on her—and I think you answered this question very well, Dr. 

Abshire—you keep improving what you’ve got, what was put in 

place a couple of decades ago. And it’s not always even a conscious 

decision; it’s just that you have to, and you do, and you get—and 

Louisiana’s not a rich state, so the State funding that you get is 

precious to them. And so, I think what we’re talking about here— 

and I get this sense from the panelists—that we need to look for 

what isn’t working well in the E-Rate system, but the focus, assuming, therefore, that we are honorable people and will do this—and 

many people will do it for us, advise us—but, to focus on the future. If we get dragged down into some of the kinds of questions 

that I can imagine—I mean, I could ask all kinds of questions 

about West Virginia, and I am sure that Senator Ayotte could, too, 

about funding-formula fairness and small states. 

And I will, and I want to see that change, and I want to see that 

better. But, if we are going to get to where we need to go, we have 

to concentrate on—not because he’s the President, but what he suggested and what you, sir, suggested in your—are going to suggest 

when your report comes out—and that is that we go to E-Rate 2— 

and getting there is going to be major, fundamental for our country, a huge challenge, something we absolutely cannot miss in that 

opportunity. 

Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. 

And I do have to say, up front, that New Hampshire happens to 

rank 50th out of 50, in terms of what we get on our return for the 

E-Rate Program. So, this issue of fairness is very important to me, 

in terms of not only how the funding formula is used, but also access: access for smaller states. I know the Chairman shares this 

concern for rural communities. And so, I hope that we will work 

on this issue from the broader context of how states are treated 

under it. 

37 

I hope that we will also, at some point, hear from the FCC on 

this issue. They aree about to undertake an important rulemaking 

on this, and they have an important role in front of this committee 

on E-Rate. 

I had a chance to meet with Mr. Coulter in advance of this hearing, and something that we talked about, and that I’ve been thinking a lot about—in terms of how E-Rate operates right now. How 

can we be more efficient in how E-Rate is operating, because the 

application process seems like a real challenge. And I certainly 

would like to hear the perspective from Dr. Abshire, as well as, I’m 

sure Ms. Lord has a perspective on this, too, about how we can better accomplish what we all want to accomplish—bringing technology into the school systems, and making sure that kids can take 

advantage of that technology. 

So, I will start with Mr. Coulter. 

Mr. COULTER. We had had some discussion already of the evolution that’s necessary in the application process to make it less 

painstaking and more accessible, particularly to schools who can’t 

use some of the infrastructure that places like Maine have put in 

place, wisely, over time. 

A couple of other areas I would point out: 

First of all, I would hope that E-Rate 2.0, if that’s what it becomes, has more transparency. We know, broadly, everywhere 

today, the value of data. There is massive data within E-Rate, and 

we don’t offer it to schools as openly as we might. Schools in the 

same district may be buying from the same provider—excuse me 

for this—— 

Mr. FINN. That’s fine. 

Mr. COULTER.—but, they may not know what the other provider—what they’re paying. That information, if it were broadly 

available, I think will drive savings beyond the program itself. So, 

if we can create some transparency to get market data about 

what’s right—there are schools out there, outside of E-Rate, that 

are paying probably four times market for broadband connections 

just because they don’t know. And we can—I think we can go a 

long way to solving that. It would be extraordinarily effective. 

Second, within E-Rate today, there are priority levels that are set 

up for access that don’t work exactly correctly for Internet infrastructure. They separate getting the wire to the school and then 

spreading the Wi-Fi into the school. So, I think we can create some 

efficiencies just by looking at the problem in today’s way. And I 

know the FCC is on this, and I am optimistic that they will make 

progress on it. But, the issue of fairness, the issue of efficiency, 

Senator, I’m exactly aligned with you on that, and I think this 

modernization effort gives us the path to get those things done. 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. Thank you. 

And I certainly would like to hear the school and the library perspectives, as well, from those who’ve had to work their way 

through this. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Thank you, Senator. I’d be happy to provide some 

remarks on that. 

I think, as we mentioned a little bit earlier in the hearing, those 

of us in the field that are filing for E-Rate every year, responsible 

and accountable for the dollars and the services that come into our 

38 

district, are keenly aware of the growth in the program over almost 

two decades. As I said earlier, the predominantly paper process has 

made extreme changes, in terms of online filing. There are still 

pieces that can bring more efficiency, but I would—— 

Senator AYOTTE. I’m sure we’ve already talked about the—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—irony of—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE.—the technology issue and the paper filing for 

E-Rate. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Yes. Well, to—the good news piece of this is that 

many, many of us use—are now in a fully online filing process. So, 

that’s the good-news piece. There’s still room to improve, as in any 

process. But, the improvements have been dramatic. 

The other efficiency piece, the concept of filing every year, there 

are several service pieces of E-Rate that we could file a multiyear 

application, which would do several things. It would reduce the 

burden on the district, which is significant during certain periods 

of time. It would also reduce the burden, at USAC, on having to 

process all the paperwork, and the personnel that are required to 

look at the applications. So, I’m strongly in favor of a multiyear application. 

And I think that—the keyword for me in this whole process is 

‘‘opportunity.’’ What an opportunity we have to look back and use 

the data, as Mr. Coulter has mentioned, that is there. I know that 

many State purchasing consortiums have come to be. I know, in 

Louisiana, we have a State E-Rate coordinator, and all of the CTOs 

and COs in our State work together and regularly meet to discuss 

these processes to be able to fine-tune and to provide in-State efficiency. 

So, I hate to say this, but it has always been about leadership. 

And the leadership in some states and some districts is strong. 

But, I look forward to renewed and increased leadership at the 

Federal level with the FCC and USAC and certainly with Congress 

taking a look at this again. Because I can say, unequivocably—because I’ve been doing this for 40 years, so I’m one of those more 

mature individuals that remembers when there was no Internet in 

schools. And—— 

Senator AYOTTE. I think almost everyone up here would be in 

that position. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Well, I didn’t want to—I didn’t want to be bold and 

say that—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ABSHIRE.—Senator. 

But, to see what has happened, transformationally, in our 

schools, and to watch—because I—every week, I’m in classrooms. 

I’m not a figurehead that sits in a central office and signs papers; 

I’m in school with children and with teachers and with principals, 

and I know firsthand what has happened, in terms of educational 

attainment and achievement. And, while we can’t quantify and say, 

‘‘Well, absolutely, definitively, this is E-Rate that made that difference’’—and some of it is anecdotal, but I can tell you firsthand, 

I’ve seen it happen classrooms with preschool students and high 

39 

school students that are more connected at home than they are in 

our school. And these aren’t children from wealthy families; these 

are children that are in Title I schools, but still have connectivity 

in the community, and they have a smartphone, and they are extremely connected, in terms of knowledge and information and research. And maybe they’re just Googling something about the entertainment industry, but they’re reading at phenomenal rates. 

And, as a former librarian myself, I’m OK they’re reading online. 

I’m OK with reading online. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ABSHIRE. So, I hope that helps, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I have a 5-year-old and an 8-year-old, so 

I’m experiencing this myself, and they’re much more tech-savvy 

than I am. 

I don’t know if you wanted to add anything, Ms. Lord. I know 

my time’s up, but I certainly want to hear your perspective if 

there’s anything. 

Ms. LORD. Thank you. 

We have spent an awful lot of time, in Maine, educating our 

schools and our libraries about the E-Rate participation, the return 

on investment from that fairly minimal participation. If somebody 

can spend a day filling out paperwork and get $20,000 for their 

school district or their library, it’s just a—it’s just a no-brainer. 

I would love to meet with you, aside from this, and go into the 

details about how we have done that in Maine, because 99 percent 

of our libraries are connected to the Internet, and there’s—something like 96–98 percent also have wireless connectivity. 

But, back to your question about how the process could be altered, we do a statewide consortium that includes over 900 schools 

and libraries. And, because we submit a consortial application, our 

application is one of the last reviewed by the SLD. And we wish 

that there was some way to expedite looking at these large 

consortial applications. We’ve been submitting them now for— 

since—I think it’s 1998 or 1999. And the same thing about the extended contracts that you mentioned, there’s never been any question of waste, fraud, or abuse, and we sure would love not to have 

to be at the tail end of getting that money approval. We find 

schools and libraries applying for the needs and not having a clue 

of when funding is going to come in for what they need for the very 

next year. So, that would be my suggestion, on expediting the process. 

And I’m so glad the NPRN is coming out—NPRM is coming out, 

because I’m sure that there are other ways that it can be done, and 

we’ll have time to study those and formulate responses. 

Senator AYOTTE. Good. 

Well, my time is expired. And, Mr. Finn, I’m not picking on you. 

I’m probably doing you a favor, actually, by not asking any questions. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FINN. That’s OK. 

Senator AYOTTE. But, thank you all for being here, and I look 

forward to New Hampshire not being 50th on the rate of return for 

our E-Rate contributions. 

[Laughter.] 

40 

Senator AYOTTE. So, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH presiding. Thank you very much, Senator 

Ayotte. 

I appreciate you all being here. Senator Rockefeller will be back 

momentarily; he had to go down and vote. And I know we have another vote in progress, a second vote right now occurring. Yes, I— 

yes, that’s why I wanted to make sure, so you wouldn’t miss that 

one. 

So, let me, first, say, again, thank you all for being here. I want 

to, obviously, thank the Committee for having this. 

In Alaska, all school districts, eight private schools, one State 

school, 74 libraries, and two education service agencies apply for ERate funding on a regular basis. The average discount for Alaska 

is 78 percent, to give you a sense of the high cost and the capacity. 

And so, we’re very familiar with this program, more than probably 

we’d want to be, but it’s important for our livelihood and ability to 

do the work in Alaska. 

I know, Sheryl, you made some interesting—in your written 

statement, I really appreciated, and I can’t agree with you more, 

and many of you, that—on your testimony, that I was able to step 

and also read. In Alaska, 90 percent of our libraries are connected; 

40 percent of our schools are connected, at 1.5 megabit. To achieve 

1 gigabit will be a huge challenge for us. I mean, no question about 

it. Four, kind of, simple things we think are a part of the equation, 

and then I have one or two quick questions for you all. 

One, we think the availability to offer this level of connectivity 

on the part of the service providers is very important. Improved infrastructure, including upgrades to videoconferencing—we utilize, 

as you can imagine in Alaska, videoconferencing, video health services, as a driver in our rural communities and in schools and libraries, to make sure they can handle this, so the infrastructure is 

there to handle this capacity. 

And also, the dollars. We appreciate the 78 percent, but, honestly, in a rural village which has no property tax base, 22 percent 

is just an unbelievable burden. When you think of the high cost to 

deliver—even though we debate the FCC recently, and we think 

they should correct this, and I think they will—when they made 

the claim that it was cheaper to build in Alaska than in the Lower 

48, which—I missed that, in all my life, being born and raised in 

Alaska. So, they’re a little confused on that, and we’re working 

with them to help them see the light. But, also the continuation of 

universal service for universal health as well as education, this is 

very important. 

You know, the idea—and I think—again, Sheryl, you talked 

about modernization, which we agree, and I don’t know if you’re familiar with the recent comments filed from FCC on Funds for 

Learning. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that at all, but here’s 

what it does. In the filing, the group suggests that the program 

move to a per-pupil allocation at an E-Rate formula. And you can 

imagine—I have a small village community, Pelican, 17 students— 

basically, they ain’t getting any E-Rate that’s going to do anything. 

41 

I mean, at that kind of formula. You know, raising the program cap 

to $4.5 billion is great, but, you know, it’s long overdue, and there’s 

a lot more that needs to be done here. 

And so, when you think about this issue—and I know you’re kind 

of in the trenches, and I appreciate that; and, as a head librarian, 

you’re head of the library association in Maine. I mean, I—you understand it, also. We have to be careful. And I know sometimes it’s 

easy for FCC—and this is more of a commentary, and just—if you 

have any response, that’s fine—for the FCC to kind of get a onesize-fits-all, because it’s easy to manage and it’s easy for the—you 

know, honestly, for the companies to manage. But, the reality is, 

when you have 80 percent of the villages not accessible by road in 

Alaska, and you have communities that are in desperate need of 

this technology in order just to survive, or it takes one day to 

download a video, right now—one day to download the video that 

the school will use, if they can use it—you can imagine what that 

does and what it—what the—gap. 

So, at the end of the day, you know, we need to make sure that 

it’s truly a universal system, not based on who can invest the most, 

who’s closer to the proximity of the service provider. And I’d be interested in, first, maybe, Sheryl, if you want to respond, on the 

Funds for Learning, if you’re familiar with this per-pupil ratio that 

they’re—that has been kicked around, if you have any comments, 

or this—then, generally, any comments you all have. 

I know I’ve read your testimony, and I appreciate that. I knew 

I’d be in and out of this meeting, so I wanted to take a glance at 

that. But, maybe if you want to make any comments. And again, 

thanks for your—did you say 40 years in—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Forty, uh-huh. 

Senator BEGICH.—in the trenches? Appreciate it. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. It’s a lot of good hair color that—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Dr. ABSHIRE.—helps me get through the—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. My parents were teachers, my sisters are teachers, my sister-in-law is a teacher—one just retired after 26 years 

in the trenches, working with students and creating capacity of 

learning. So, thank you. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Well, it’s an honorable profession. I know that your 

parents raised you well if you came from educators, so you certainly understand. 

Senator BEGICH. I don’t know if they’d say that at times, but I 

appreciate that. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ABSHIRE. I’m going to bet they would say that. I have a 

daughter that teaches in Texas, so I know the pride in having, you 

know, a child that’s in education. 

I am somewhat familiar with that proposal, and I think what I 

would say, Senator, is that—again, I sound like a broken record, 

but this whole concept of opportunity. I think the more conversation that comes to the table about E-Rate and the opportunity to 

finesse and to tweak a system that has, quite frankly, had tremendous and phenomenal success in such a large-scale way, is a little 

bit overdue. So, we’re having the conversation now. I think that 

42 

proposal—I think what we have to do in—when we look, in terms 

of goals, that we make sure that they’re crafted to fit the need. I 

also have, in my school district and certainly my state, very small 

rural schools, that that process might not work optimally without 

some type of a floor—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. ABSHIRE.—some type of a process that helps take that into 

account. 

The other thing that I know you’re keenly aware of, coming from 

your state, is the fact that we’ve got to figure out a way where the 

rural communities cannot be left out of this Priority 2 internal connections piece. There are lots of ideas floating around, but I’d go 

back again to Mr. Coulter’s earlier comments about the fact that, 

with the tremendous amount of data that we have on this program, 

the concept of transparency and quantifying that data in some way 

that helps us really look at state-by-state, district-by-district, and 

parsing that data in a way where we can make what we—what everyone tells us in school districts to do, make data-driven decisions—I think that we need to apply that same rationale to these 

processes. 

So, I think we’ve mentioned, several times, you know, the proposed rulemaking process is going to be active and engaged. And 

I think all of us welcome that, because it’s only through this connected and serious dialogue about, ‘‘How do we get from A to B to 

C and remain competitive, but yet understand the responsibility 

that we all have with this process around E-Rate?’’ that we’re going 

to come to consensus and middle ground that, at the end of the 

day, is going to do what the fund was originally crafted to do, 

which is to provide access and equity to every child in America, no 

matter where they live, no matter where their parents work, and 

no matter where they go to school, and in such strategic ways that 

we can point with pride to the program, as we do now—you know, 

I’m very proud of what’s happened in this program. And I know 

that we have an opportunity to continuously improve it and have 

it make sense for everyone. But, we’re not all going to get what we 

want. We know that. 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. 

Dr. ABSHIRE. But, I think it’s the data—is the key piece, Senator. 

Senator BEGICH. And is it fair to say, when you say ‘‘equity,’’ you 

mean also universal, that it doesn’t matter where you live, who you 

are, how remote, how urban, that you should have equal access and 

speed and otherwise—— 

Dr. ABSHIRE. I think that—I think—yes, sir, I think that goes 

without saying. It—again, I come from a state—I have—we have 

a K–12 school that sits, surrounded by rice fields, and it doesn’t get 

any more rural than, perhaps, in Alaska, on a mountaintop. 

But—— 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. ABSHIRE.—we have significant problems there, and E-Rate 

has been the solution to inform and engage that entire community 

with connectivity. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. 

Any other comments? Sure. 

43 

Ms. LORD. There are two organizations that are looking carefully 

at all States and their needs, and with the aim of exactly what you 

just said: equity for all. 

I’ll quickly mention that Maine, my home state, has an issue 

with islands that are populated—— 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Ms. LORD.—unbridged islands with schools on them, and getting 

equal connectivity for them is a huge challenge, as you might imagine. 

I belong to an organization, because I am the Maine State Librarian, called the Chief Offices of State Library Agencies, and I’m 

the liaison between the Nation’s State librarians and the American 

Library Association Office of Information Technology Policy. And I 

chair their E-Rate Task Force. And we talk to the E-Rate coordinators from every state that has one, and most states do, monthly 

and share common concerns and common issues. And we’re very 

aware of the challenges that your state meets, and we hope that, 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that we can make a point 

about this equity of access and to provide what people need. 

We have tiny libraries in Maine that may be open 15 hours a 

week and run by volunteers. They’re happy with the T–1. They 

may be happy with the T–1 forever. But, we have others who already have a gigabit of connectivity, because that’s what they need. 

This program has always been based on basic connectivity, and 

that definition has changed radically, as we all know. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. LORD. So, just to let you know that State librarians and the 

Washington ALA Office are watching this whole scene. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COULTER. For Senators worried about the rural issues, I 

would suggest you keep your eye on three things: 

First of all, we understand that the digital divide is a large discussion today. We need to make sure the digital divide isn’t just 

about income, it’s about location also. 

Once you define the digital divide correctly, you get to my second 

point, which is, the data emerging shows that we may make large 

investments on one side of the digital divide, but the payoff is highest moving those people across the digital divide. Any of the people 

on the right side of the digital divide today will find these services 

anyhow, so the payoff of making the larger investments into these 

rural communities is actually higher. 

The third thing to keep an eye on is, there is a disproportionate 

cost as you get more rural. I believe that we have to bear that. So, 

as people try to cap the expansion of the program, we have to understand that that pressure will put disproportionate pressure on 

people on the wrong side of the digital divide. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, it’s a good point. I mean, when you think 

of, maybe, the interstate system or the power or telephone or rail, 

you know, we made the decision, in those public policy decisions, 

that, you know, we’re going to electrify the country, and no matter 

where you are. And the costs may be higher to get to some and less 

than others, but, overall, the benefit will be higher than it is without it, no matter where you live. 

44 

So, you know, where I think a lot of people are still grappling 

with the fact that we—this technology is no longer an ‘‘extra,’’ it’s 

the basis. And in the generation next, if someone has a landline, 

it’ll be a miracle. So, we have to think of all this as a longer valueadd. And so, it’s a good point you make there, so thank you. 

Let me—I’m going to turn to staff, because the Chair isn’t here, 

and I might have the chance to adjourn the meeting, but I don’t 

want to get the Chair upset. That would be bad, as a member. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. So, let me pause for just one second. Excuse me. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BEGICH. What we’ll do—look at that. See, it’s all about 

buying enough time—oh, and we got two members; this is even better. 

Senator Rockefeller, I have made agreements with all of them on 

all kinds of issues. They’re—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. They’re very excited about your support. 

And—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH.—I appreciate that all telecom in Alaska will 

now be coming from West Virginia. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. It’s back to you. I just finished, actually, so perfect timing. I’m going to go vote. 

The CHAIRMAN presiding. Have you ruined our—you’d better 

hurry—— 

Senator BEGICH. I know. I—— 

The CHAIRMAN.—before they finish the vote. 

Senator BEGICH. You know, if we actually used technology in the 

Senate to vote, we might be able to vote easier. But, that’s another 

story for another day. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. Some of us—others—never mind, I’ll stop there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much. 

I want to call on the distinguished Edward Markey while officially welcoming him to this committee. He has been doing this for 

27 years in the House—30. And he was, right at the very start, one 

of the—along with Olympia and myself—on the House side, the ERate champion. And it just so happens that he’s on the Commerce 

Committee, which make his Chairman very, very happy. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And—I have to 

learn how to—I have to push the button. 

The CHAIRMAN. That happened to me the first time. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I couldn’t eat for a week. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be 

on the Commerce Committee with you and to know that you 

played, along with Senator Snowe, the key role, over here in the 

45 

Senate, in making sure that the E-Rate is available to children in 

America, to libraries in America, to making it possible to say that 

there is a democratization of access to opportunities through access 

to the educational tools, which the Internet provides. 

As we were debating all of the big globalization issues in the 

1990s, it was obviously critical that the children of America have 

access to the skill set which they were going to need in order to 

compete in that global economy. So, as we sped up the speed of 

change, we also had to speed up the rate at which young people 

got access to the tools they were going to need. 

And so the E-Rate is a big part of that. And, in fact, the—access 

to the Internet in schools is the first educational technology to have 

ever been deployed at the same rate for affluent children as it was 

for the children of the poor. And that’s quite a statement about a 

piece of legislation that has now actually allocated well more than 

$30 billion. 

And, while you and Senator Snowe were working on that over 

here, I was doing the same work, over on the House side, to put 

together the coalition that would make it possible for this incredible program to be there so that kids would have access to it. 

And it’s my honor to be here on the Commerce Committee with 

you. I’ve admired you for so long, and I thank you for your historic 

work on this legislation. 

So, I—and I love the fact that my first hearing in the Senate is 

about the E-Rate, because, in a lot of ways, it is the educational 

program of the last 18 years in America. It’s well over $30 billion. 

It’s targeted toward those who need the extra funding most. And 

you can see, in the hands of any kid, regardless of income, regardless of race, that, once you put the technology in front of them, 

they’re going to be adapting to it just as fast as a kid in the most 

affluent neighborhoods of the country. And, ultimately, that is 

what is going to help to ensure that we are competitive in the 21st 

century, because education is what it is that makes our country 

great. 

I actually had a conversation with George Lucas about this, back 

in 1993. We had lunch, talking about how we could do something 

that ensured that every child had access to it. And it was actually 

built into the 1994 Telecommunications Act, which passed the 

House, but, unfortunately—and we now know it’s obsolete, but it 

got filibustered to death in the Senate in 1994. But, we’re taking 

care of that now over here. And then Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe took up that cause in 1995 and 1996, and here we are, 

kind of enjoying it. 

So, let me ask this. In terms of—and maybe you’ve already answered these questions—what should the FCC do to improve connections inside schools, including Wi-Fi, across Massachusetts, but 

around the entire country? Would one of you want to address—— 

Mr. FINN. Yes—— 

Senator MARKEY.—that question? 

Mr. FINN.—Senator. First of all, congratulations and welcome. 

And I congratulate you and the Chairman for the historic work on 

E-Rate. I think that this is the foundation in which we can answer 

your question, because what we’ve been talking about this afternoon has really been a critical investment and then, how do we enVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
46 

sure that we’re getting the results and the efficiencies that are required in order to keep our children competitive and ensure that 

we’re creating the workforce of the future, not just for this country, 

but that we are globally competitive and having global workforce? 

So, the work that you’ve done in the past, and the work that’s required in this legislation is really to focus on that. 

One of the things that I think we need to ensure that we’re looking at is, not just the connectivity of the schools, but the 

connectivity of the students, in order to put the technology in the 

hands of the students. It’s easy to put technology in the hands of 

a student. So, you can put a cell phone in the hands of the student, 

but, without the battery, it’s providing no value. And we have to 

make sure that we’re focused on, not just the connectivity of the 

school, but also the value it’s bringing to the student, in order to 

ensure they’re participating in the education of the 21st century. 

We’ve talked about minimum standards. One of the largest fears 

I have is that we focus on the negative, the waste. I’m from a family of 12 brothers and sisters, and one of the things that I’ve 

learned through that process—and it truly is a process—is that you 

can spend a lot of time focused on the wastefulness of more than 

you need, but if you don’t focus on the wastefulness of less than 

what you need, you’re in equal difficult situation. 

And so, one of the things that we want to ensure that we’re providing with technology and the policy for a student who can visit 

Africa, England, and South America from their desktop, whether 

they’re in a rural community or in an urban community, becomes 

important. And so, I think that we’re on the right track. I think 

the modernization of E-Rate is important for the children, it’s important for the country, and it’s important for our competitiveness. 

So, thank you for the work that you’ve done. 

Senator MARKEY. So, on wireless—— 

Mr. FINN. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY.—do you have a specific plan for wireless? 

Mr. FINN. Most of the education systems around the country, and 

most of the—and many of the E-Rate expenditures—is focused on 

wireless in order to ensure that these devices are really the devices 

of the future, in order to provide that access to the world. And I 

think that the architectural approach of, not just the wired, but the 

wireless really is a focus on ensuring that we’re connecting the student and that we are in a mobile world and that the benefits do 

land in the hands of the students. 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. So, I’m the author of the National 

Broadband Plan. 

Mr. FINN. Sure. 

Senator MARKEY. So, I built that into the 2009 stimulus bill. And 

the National Broadband Plan included a number of important recommendations on E-Rate: setting goals for greater speeds—the 

issue today is not one of access, it’s one of speed—— 

Mr. FINN. That’s right. 

Senator MARKEY.—improving Wi-Fi and other internal connections in schools. If coffee drinkers assume there will be a Wi-Fi at 

Starbucks, then students should assume the same when they walk 

into a school. 

47 

And, third, streamlining the E-Rate application process for 

schools. Educators should spend their time educating, not filling 

out the paperwork. 

So, I commend the FCC for the work which they have been 

doing. And I praise the President’s commitment to making sure 

this is a high priority. But, I think it’s time for us to establish a 

plan so that we maintain our excellence, and that it’s an articulated plan that mothers and fathers can understand, and the country can understand, so that we ensure that our country is number 

one, looking over its shoulder at number two and three in the 

world. And the best way of doing that is ensuring that we take the 

E-Rate plan and move it to the 21st century in a way that everyone 

can understand. 

Mr. Coulter. 

Mr. COULTER. Yes. Since I have two visionaries left in the room, 

here, I would give you a vision to think about as you watch the 

FCC’s action, going forward. We originally defined E-Rate as access 

into the school as priority one and then classroom as priority two. 

What we’re saying here today is that we ought to expand that all 

the way to the classroom. 

There’s still a missing piece. Other countries have defined the 

connection all the way to the device. So, Turkey is out buying the 

device at a national level. We probably can’t do that. But, if you 

can find ways, within modernization, to really complete the connection somehow, I think that would be of great purpose. We have 

misdefined the idea of ‘‘connection,’’ once you get to educational 

technology. 

The good news is, I believe that, if we define it into the classroom, that there’ll be enough competitive juices among the devicemakers that maybe it’ll help us open that market. But, there may 

be some things that you can do to help that happen. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, great. 

Dr. Abshire? 

Dr. ABSHIRE. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, and congratulations. We all watched your movement to the Senate with great 

pride, and so we’re glad you’re here and certainly supporting Senator Rockefeller in this work in this new capacity. 

The concept of the wireless connectivity, I think, is one that is 

important. As the use of technology in classrooms has changed 

today—primarily, when we first began this process, we had a lot 

of desktop computers sitting in classrooms with wired connections. 

With the advent of the tablets, the iPads and—and I would bring 

a point up that we haven’t talked about yet this afternoon, is—the 

student devices sometimes referred to as ‘‘bring your own technology’’ or ‘‘bring your own device’’ is growing at exponential rates, 

because the price of the device is becoming so much more affordable that many students, even in economically depressed areas, 

come to school with more than one device. They may have a phone 

and then they may have a tablet. And so, I know, in Louisiana, and 

certainly my district in Lake Charles, we’ve paid a lot of attention 

to what has happened, in terms of the shift between a wireless and 

a wired connection, and we’ve used E-Rate, I think, very, very 

wisely to cost-shift some of the dollars as we’ve been able to move 

48 

away from the wired connections and the expenses that that entailed and shifted that to wireless connectivity. 

So, in all of our schools, all 70 of our campuses, you can park in 

the parking lot, you can walk outside, you can go into the gymnasium or the cafeteria, and you’re going to have a connection, because that’s what 21st-century education demands: kids that are 

always on. It’s not just when you’re in classroom. 

So, I really appreciate that question, because I think it points to 

the fact that things have shifted. And so, in districts, with leadership, we’ve been able to cost-shift away from textbooks and move 

those costs into wireless connectivity, digital content that provides 

relevant, current information to students when they need it, not 

when we want to teach it. 

So, I really appreciate the question, and I think it’s a valuable 

point, and I think it shows that the evolution of the E-Rate is— 

and the fund is doing what it needs to do. The only problem is that 

pesky cap. If we could just increase the cap, then I think we could 

see the type of expansion that’s needed and that you refer to. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

So—would you like to add something, Ms. Lord? 

Ms. LORD. Yes. I’m ready to burst, and you recognized it. Thank 

you so much. I never in a million years thought I would be sitting 

here with you, Senator Markey and Senator Rockefeller, talking 

about E-Rate and its impact on libraries. I am so honored—— 

Senator MARKEY. Neither did we. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LORD. I am so honored to be here talking to you. 

First of all, a lot of the conversation this afternoon has, rightfully 

and understandably, focused on schools, but I beg you to remember 

the 30,000 people each week who use our nation’s 66,000 libraries. 

I think I just said that number wrong, because I’m so excited. Sixteen-thousand libraries who serve 30 million—— 

Senator MARKEY. There it is, yes. 

Ms. LORD.—people each week. And that is a critical number. And 

it isn’t just students whose worlds are changing, it’s adults whose 

worlds are changing, too. People don’t have the same jobs anymore. 

People need to reeducate themselves and train for jobs, and our libraries are helping them do that. 

And, in terms of wireless, 91 percent of our libraries across the 

country do have wireless. And, in Maine, it’s a higher ratio than 

that. In fact, in the capital of Augusta, where I work, one night 

watchman got relieved from his duties because he parked in front 

of the State Library every night and was online. And once somebody figured that out, the poor gentleman lost his job. Now, that’s 

certainly not a plus of E-Rate, but I mention it. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LORD. Some of you may be aware of now-Senator King’s effort for one-on-one student devices when he was the Governor of 

Maine and was one of the first people in the country to say, ‘‘Our 

students need one-on-one personal devices.’’ And that worked in so 

beautifully with the E-Rate Program, it was the perfect merging, 

or a perfect storm, if you have. 

Libraries are open when schools aren’t. And children do come to 

libraries after school. Children do use libraries in the summer. 

49 

Children do use libraries on the weekends. So, I want you to remember that, too, please. 

And libraries provide to students and to adult learners all kinds 

of online resources. Connectivity is great, but you’ve got to have 

some content there. You just have a line running around the country—you understand what I’m saying. I don’t—— 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Ms. LORD.—need to belabor it. 

So, we have all kinds of newspapers online, periodical articles online, and reference books online, which are much, much less expensive than every library purchasing them for themselves and which 

are available to all schools and libraries in Maine. 

So, please, I beg you—and Senator Rockefeller said it beautifully 

in his opening remarks—libraries, there are fewer of us, but we are 

critical to the people that we serve, in terms of reaching out to the 

world, in terms of self-education. And I could sit here and tell you 

stories, for the next hour, about individual lives, people who have 

gotten jobs because of the training they had at the library or the 

online resources at the library; businesses in Maine that could 

upload huge files of information at the library; small businesses, 

which are the backbone of the Maine economy, who would not be 

surviving if they could not go to a library with a broadband connection and upload those files; tourists who come to Maine and stay 

because they can stay in touch with their businesses. And we’ve 

had people actually say, when they came to a library, in Rangeley, 

for example, a beautiful lake region, and the librarian said to one 

gentleman who came in every morning for 2 weeks, ‘‘I feel so sorry 

you have to do this on your vacation,’’ and he said, ‘‘Are you kidding? If I didn’t have this connectivity, I could only stay here a 

week. Because of this connectivity, I can stay here several weeks 

with my family.’’ So, that’s the kind of thing I can go on and on 

about all night. 

Senator MARKEY. And we thank you for doing it. We—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LORD. Well, I thank you for listening. Schools are important. 

I taught in schools for 15 years. I just finished a term on a school 

board. I think I’d rather be in the Senate than on a local school 

board, I’ll be honest with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LORD. So, I understand and support, completely, the needs 

of the schools. But, for goodness sakes, please don’t let libraries get 

buried in all this. And we will be so active and put so much 

thought into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that comes up, 

and do our very best to support citizens who are not in our public 

schools, as well as the citizens that are. 

Senator MARKEY.—thank you. 

And thank—— 

Ms. LORD. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY.—you all. Thank you all so, so much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. We 

need greater speed, better Wi-Fi, a more streamlined process for 

applications. We’ve got to make this whole thing work even better, 

because we have to keep pace with the change that’s going on. Our 

competitors are out there around the world, and they know that 

50 

this is key. And, in a lot of ways, it is the proxy, it is the measurement by which a nation is going to be able to determine how successful it will be in the future. 

And so, this question, whether it be Massachusetts or West Virginia, is the same one. What are we giving to these kids? You 

know? And that’s our obligation. You just don’t take home your 

books in a book bag anymore. You have to just continue to move 

on. And the Chinese, the Indians, the Germans, and others, they 

have a plan. And we don’t have to fear these nations, but we 

should respect them. When America has a plan, America wins. And 

so, we just need a plan that’s articulated, that mothers and fathers 

understand, and that every community in the country, whether it 

be in West Virginia or Massachusetts or any other place—— 

Ms. LORD. Or Maine, and that includes libraries. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. And libraries. I think the Rockefeller family 

appreciates libraries. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. I think they helped to—I think they’ve helped 

to construct enough for the country. I think we know—— 

Ms. LORD. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY.—there’s a preexisting bias toward libraries. 

And so, for me, Mr. Chairman, I’m so glad that I had this, you 

know, as the first hearing, because I don’t think there’s anything 

that either of us will ever do that really matches the impact that 

the E-Rate can have upon the families of every single citizen in our 

country. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Do you think we’ve said enough nice things about each other for 

about—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. I’m not allowing a graciousness gap to open up, 

here. OK? 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. All right. OK. 

Let’s make the final question, because you’ve been incredibly patient as we’ve wandered in and out, on—there are two things that 

I’d like to get comments on. 

One is, I totally agree with you—and, I think, Mr. Coulter, you’ve 

made this comment; others did, also—is the whole transparency 

factor. People—in order to support an E-Rate 2, as I call it, people 

have to trust—you know, because there will be costs—it won’t necessarily come from the Federal Government, et cetera; or, you 

know, legislated costs, that kind of thing—but—and also, it—things 

take time. In other words, one of the reasons that we have to get 

at it right now is because the payoff doesn’t come for quite a while 

that we’re training people for the future. Now, we’ve trained people, already, on E-Rate system, as it has been, and they’ve met 

with great success. But, what we’re talking now is a whole new 

level. 

So, I would be interested in two things from anyone who wants 

to answer this, provided one of them is Mr. Coulter, and that is the 

importance of transparency for the trust of the American people 

51 

and also for the efficacy or the willingness of people to adapt to the 

E-Rate Program, take advantage of it because they do trust it. 

That’s number one. 

Number two, as a businessperson, I’d like you to say a few 

words—I mean, we—you know, we keep reading about this hundreds of thousands or—whatever, tens of thousands, a hundredthousand jobs that are available right now in the Silicon Valley 

which we can’t fill because we don’t have the people trained, technically, for it. And that’s, you know, outrageous and enraging and 

all the rest of it. But, the point is, it doesn’t make any difference; 

we’ve got to solve that problem. 

Would—could you go a little bit into—and anybody else who 

wants to—into, one, the question of making it transparent so that 

people can’t bring up little nics and nacs, which are, in fact, as Dr. 

Abshire has been talking about, are getting cleaned up, a lot of 

them, as the program goes along, because they have no choice; and, 

second, the cost to the American economy, to American business, 

of not having people available? 

Mr. COULTER. So, let me start on those two. 

One of the things I hope the FCC would do in the upcoming process is to turn E-Rate from, not just a process to get important 

money into the system, but as a process to save money. So, if 

schools have data, I think they can use it to go save money in the 

process by figuring out best practices, by figuring out who to buy 

from, et cetera. So, it’s taking a purchasing cooperative data and 

making it available to everyone in a way that can push down costs. 

So, scale and data and technology are important to pushing down 

costs. E-Rate can provide scale and data. So, let’s make it transparent. 

We have—Education Superhighway, who we’ve worked with, has 

done a lot of work. They don’t have the E-Rate data, but they’ve 

gone out and recreated it by asking at individual schools. And they 

found, often even within the same district, people are paying four 

times different for certain services because they just don’t know. 

So, we can solve a lot of efficiency and drive a lot of costs out of 

the system, generally—— 

The CHAIRMAN. And who will make that clear to them, that they 

can pay the same rate? 

Mr. COULTER. Well, if the information is—you know, around our 

companies, if someone buys something somewhere, it’s immediately 

valuable—it’s immediately available online, and everyone can see 

it. So, why not have an online purchasing data part of E-Rate, 

which will allow schools to have information they need to minimize 

costs? 

In my day job, when I’m not working on these issues, we look to 

hire the people you’re talking about, people who are innovative and 

STEM-trained. And some of the areas that educational technology 

have been already shown to be most productive is within STEM 

and math. The numbers that struck me in this process are 31, 23, 

17—or 31 in math, 23 in science, 17 in reading. That is just unacceptable. And if we don’t invest, it’s going to get worse. So, we need 

to focus on that 31 and 23 and the 17, but we need to create new 

jobs. 

52 

You know, what gives me hope in this is today—someone challenged me, recently, to come with anything in the Internet that had 

been created by somebody under—over 30. Right? And I was really 

pretty challenged. Basically, most of the new things in the Internet 

are from people under 30. Those are students that were brought up 

in schools that you connected to the Internet. So, I don’t know if 

there’s a direct correlation, but I suspect there might be. So, if we 

continue to stress access to technology in our school, I think we will 

continue to drive innovation and a technology-enabled workforce. 

And there are a few things more important we can do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just close this by thanking you and just 

saying that, just before I came over here, I was at the National 

Youth Science Camp meeting, which, happily, is in West Virginia 

every year. And it takes the two top science students from each 

state—now, how they pick that, I do not know and I do not 

care—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—and they each come to—they all come to Washington, and they have a series of experiences here. So, we had a 

lunch today, and a businessperson who’s an expert in cybersecurity 

spoke. And it was stunning for me, as it is every year, just to look 

at these young people—just to look at them—to listen to the questions they had to ask. One, that they were—they could just get up 

and ask a question so fluently, so literally, so unabashedly. Nobody 

was shy. They—there wasn’t a decent sound system, so they just 

made their own sound system, causing them no problems whatsoever. And I kept saying to myself, this is the hope of America. And 

then I knew I was having this hearing, and it just makes this hearing so much more important, because if they’re that good coming 

out of an E-Rate Program and a schooling system, thus far, imagine how good they might be 10–15 years from now. 

So, on that lofty note, I want to genuinely thank all of you. 

You’ve been wonderful. I mean, I’d invite you home—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—to have dinner. But, I can’t cook. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And I’m not going to give Dr. Abshire a hotdog. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So, thank you for coming. 

Thank you, Senator Markey, for gracing our Commerce Committee. To be quite honest with you, that’s one of the big things 

that will have happened to me for the next several years, is the 

fact that you wanted to be on this committee, and it was at the top 

of the list, because the person who was whipping it, who is on this 

committee, came up to me and I saw your ranking, and Commerce 

was at the top. And here you are. 

And so, all of us are grateful, as we are to each of you and for 

all the work you do, and the people who go through it with you. 

Right? 

So, with that, I think what I’ll do is close the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(53) 

A P P E N D I X 

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator: 

On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association 

(NEA), we offer our views of support for strengthening and expanding the E-Rate 

program ahead of tomorrow’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing, ‘‘E-Rate 2.0: 

Connecting Every Child to the Transformative Power of Technology.’’ Since its creation in 1996, the E-Rate has had overwhelming success in connecting our Nation’s 

schools and classrooms to the Internet. The program continues to be a vital source 

of assistance in maintaining connectivity and enhancing learning. 

NEA is a strong supporter and advocate of the E-Rate program, as it has helped 

bridge the digital divide for countless students by providing them access to the 

Internet and providing them the opportunity to develop the skills needed to compete 

in a digital age. The program has been successful at connecting nearly all our Nation’s schools to the Internet. In fact, it has been so successful that merely accessing 

the Internet is not enough. Students and educators not only depend on access to 

the Internet, they require high-capacity broadband connectivity. 

NEA believes that additional investment in the E-Rate program is needed to help 

bolster the broadband infrastructure of our Nation’s schools. Without high-capacity 

broadband connectivity that can support multi-user school environments, educators 

and students will not be able to engage in enhanced learning, distance education 

and use existing applications, as well as support future applications. The E-Rate 

program could serve as the conduit to enhance the broadband infrastructure of our 

Nation’s schools as it has had a good track record of providing ongoing Internet 

connectivity to schools. 

However, it is important to note that the demand for the E-Rate program continues to outpace the discounts available. The additional investment to bolster highcapacity broadband infrastructure should not supplant current E-Rate funding. In 

FY 2012, program requests reached an all-time high of $5.2 billion in discounts, 

roughly double the amount available. In light of education funding cuts and the 

damaging effects of sequestration on education budgets, the need for the E-Rate program has never been higher. 

NEA believes that the time is now for critical investment in the E-Rate. Accessing 

the Internet is simply not enough. Our classrooms must be built upon a broadband 

infrastructure that not only meets current needs but also supports 21st century 

teaching and learning. The increasing use of technology in the classroom will transform the role of educators allowing the educational process to become even more 

student-centered. 

Educators know that the E-Rate program is key to student success and ensuring 

access to technologies that better prepare our students for college and 21st century 

careers. We look forward to working with the Committee to strengthen this vital 

program. 

Sincerely, 

MARY KUSLER, 

Director of Government Relations. 

54 

VERIZON

Basking Ridge, NJ, July 17, 2013 

Hon. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

Chairman, 

Senate Commerce Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Commerce Committee, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune: 

On behalf of Verizon, I write to thank you for scheduling a hearing on July 17, 

entitled, ‘‘E-Rate 2.0: Connecting Every Child to the Transformative Power of Technology.’’ This is a timely and important topic, and is deserving of the Committee’s 

full attention. 

We agree that the time has come to modernize the E-Rate program to make sure 

that its statutory goals are met, and that students have the advanced tools they 

need to be successful in the communications age. Providing students and teachers 

across the country with high-speed broadband connectivity is an essential component in ensuring America’s continued global competitiveness. 

ConnectED challenges the Federal Communications Commission to modernize and 

leverage the existing E-Rate program, so that our schools are connected with 

broadband speeds of no less than 100 Mbps and a target of 1 Gbps. While the details around the program still need to be developed and we recognize that many policy challenges will need to be met along the way, we applaud your leadership and 

the leadership of President Obama in setting the laudable goal of connecting all students with next-generation broadband in their schools. 

Verizon is doing its part to prepare students for success in the 21st Century by 

promoting the technology transformation of the educational system. For example, 

the Verizon Foundation is committed to improving teaching and learning, particularly through the use of mobile technologies to support Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education. 

Last year, we also launched the Verizon Innovative learning Schools (VILS) program to provide grants to Title 1 schools for teachers’ professional development. Results of the program show that the effective integration of technology in classroom 

curriculum, coupled with on-going training for teachers can have a positive impact 

on student learning. 

VlLS is just one of dozens of examples that show how advanced technology in the 

classroom can transform the learning process for students and teachers alike. By 

reviewing and modernizing the E-Rate program, we believe we can do even more 

to promote digital learning for all of our students. 

We look f01ward to working with you on this important mission. 

Sincerely, 

CRAIG L. SILLIMAN, 

Senior Vice President—Public Policy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. HARRINGTON, CEO, FUNDS FOR LEARNING, LLC 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

submit this statement for the record as part of the Committee’s hearing today entitled E-Rate 2.0: Connecting Every Child to the Transformative Power of Technology. 

I want to thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership in making the E-Rate program a success and all the members of the Committee for the continued strong interest in and support of this Federal program that is so enormously important to 

our Nation’s schools and libraries. 

Funds For Learning, LLC (FFL) is a regulatory compliance firm that specializes 

in the E-Rate program. FFL has been providing services, including online management and compliance tools, to the E-Rate community since the fall of 1997, when 

the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) was making initial preparations to 

launch the program. Our primary responsibility to our clients is to ensure that they 

remain compliant with the rules, regulations and administrative requirements. We 

use our website to keep the public informed about program developments and to 

help promote competition for E-Rate eligible services by making it easier for service 

providers to access competitive bidding information on USAC’s, the universal service 

administrator’s website. 

Since the program’s early days, FFL has taken an active role in trying to help 

shape the program’s policies and procedures for the better. In 2003, for example, the 

FCC invited the president of our firm to participate in a public forum to discuss 

potential rule changes to strengthen E-Rate program compliance and oversight. Also 

55 

1FFL has prepared a detailed analysis of the FY2013 demand for discounted telecommunications and Internet access by schools. A copy of this analysis is being submitted to the Committee along with this statement. 2 58 percent of respondents to the FFL survey believed that their telecommunication and 

Internet expenses would rise over the next five years. The survey results are being submitted 

to the Committee along with this statement. 3We have data to support this and would be pleased to share it with the Committee upon 

request. 

in 2003, USAC invited another FFL officer to be a member of its Task Force on the 

Prevention of Waste, Fraud and Abuse. In 2011, we took the initiative to petition 

the FCC to direct USAC to fund more requests for internal connections support, and 

the FCC responded with the Funds For Learning Order, which directed USAC to, 

among other things, ‘‘make funding commitments for priority two services at the 80 

percent percent discount level for funding year 2010.’’ 

We, too, believe in the transformative power of technology. That is why we fully 

support the Chairman’s goal of bringing ‘‘the promise of next-generation broadband 

connectivity to more schools and libraries.’’ In survey results that FFL released last 

October, only 10 percent of schools described their current communications networks 

as ready for the future. Obviously, much work needs to be done. 

E-Rate funds can and should be used to help our country reach this important 

goal. To make this possible, however, the E-Rate program must, as the Chairman 

has suggested, be strengthened. To strengthen it sufficiently, we believe, the FCC 

must take the following two steps and, equally important, take them simultaneously: (1) at least double the size of the E-Rate fund—since current demand for 

funding is already more than twice the amount available—and (2) equitably limit 

how much funding any given applicant may receive in one funding year. 

More money is needed. In 1998, schools participating in the E-Rate program reported annual telecommunications and Internet expenses of $15 per student. Now, 

in 2013, that number has more than tripled to greater than $50 per student. Yet, 

during that same period, E-Rate funding levels have barely increased.1

Looking ahead, there is every reason to believe that schools (and libraries) will 

continue to increase their use of advanced communications. Schools are planning to 

connect more students—and more devices—with faster Internet connections, and 

these schools are looking to the E-Rate program for additional support.2 Given the 

current growth in demand, and assuming the FCC continues to use a ‘‘discount 

threshold’’ system to rank funding applications, FFL estimates that 84 percent of 

libraries and 71 percent of schools risk being disqualified from receiving any E-Rate 

discounts by 2015. For a program that includes ‘‘Universal Service’’ in its title, it 

is unimaginable—and unacceptable—that we would continue down this current 

course. 

More money is certainly imperative, but more money alone is not going to be 

enough to address this situation. We doubt that there will ever be enough E-Rate 

funding to satisfy what every school and library ‘‘wants.’’ But if the FCC, for the 

first time in the E-Rate program’s nearly 17-year history, requires applicants to operate under E-Rate funding budgets and stops handing them ‘‘blank E-Rate checks,’’ 

it will incentivize them to drive harder bargains with service providers for eligible 

services and provide the motivation they need to consider and plan their E-Rate 

purchases more carefully. No public or private organization, none that we know of 

anyway, operates without a budget or receives a blank check every year to purchase 

as much as it wants. But that is exactly how E-Rate applicants are treated and, 

as the program’s history plainly shows, that simply does not work. 

Under an equitable budget system, it is true that some schools and libraries 

might not get what they ‘‘want,’’ but more than likely, and especially if the FCC 

makes more funding available, the vast majority of schools and libraries will get 

what they ‘‘need’’—or at least some reasonable amount very close to that.3 Under 

our E-Rate 2.0 ‘‘budget’’ proposal, which we have already shared with the FCC, and 

which I have attached to this statement, an estimated 87 percent of applicants 

would qualify in FY 2014 for total E-Rate discounts that were equal to or greater 

than their FY 2013 telecommunications and Internet funding requests combined. 

Furthermore and unlike today, 100 percent of applicants would enjoy greater freedom and flexibility to use their discounts on any service or equipment that the FCC 

included on its eligibility list and, in addition, have them delivered to any eligible 

building in their systems that they decide needs it. 

Under FFL’s E-Rate 2.0 proposal, unlike under many other proposals to ‘‘fix’’ the 

E-Rate program, the FCC would not have to try to fix what many applicants, especially those who work very hard to comply with program rules, believe is not actually broken—the discount matrix or the eligible services list. Nor would there be any 

56 

need to modify in any material respect how the program operates. That being said, 

FFL’s E-Rate 2.0 ‘‘budget’’ proposal has the added advantage of being eminently 

adaptable to other ‘‘fixes.’’ Our solution framework and the various other proposals 

being discussed are neither mutually exclusive nor even slightly at odds. Any additional funding ‘‘realized’’ as a result of any programmatic change would easily ‘‘plug 

into’’ our proposed framework, resulting in increased annual budgets across the 

board. 

Under FFL’s E-Rate 2.0 proposal, only the following three adjustments to the ERate program would be necessary: 

1. Increase annual E-Rate funding to $4.5 billion permanently, with an ongoing 

adjustment for inflation. Increasing the amount of funding allows more applicants to enhance their network connectivity. 

2. Restore the original technology-neutral E-Rate framework by removing the 

‘‘Priority System’’ funding cap. Restoring technology-neutral funding priorities 

gives applicants the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective solutions that 

they conclude they need to meet their own unique, local needs. 

3. Place reasonable limits on the annual amount of E-Rate discounts available to 

any single applicant. Placing limits on the total discounts available to individual applicants encourages thoughtful, cost-effective decisionmaking, stops 

large-spending applicants from creating dramatic, annual funding shortages, 

and helps to ensure that E-Rate discounts are applied only to what each applicant needs the most. 

More specifically, this is what FFL is proposing: 

1. Do Not Alter the Current Discount Matrix or Eligible Services List or the Form 

470, Form 471, PIA Review, or Payment Process. Leverage applicants’ existing 

training and experience, and avoid reinventing the wheel. 

2. Eliminate Unlimited E-Rate Discounts by Creating a Graduated Budget Matrix 

Based on Economic Need. Create a graduated budget matrix that provides equitable, per student and per patron (or other variable) discount limits for 

schools and libraries at different discount levels. 90 percent-discount applicants 

would receive the highest percapita budget amounts and 20 percent-discount 

applicants the lowest. 

3. Tie Annual Budget Amounts to Geographic Location Too. Develop the new 

budget matrix by taking into account a variety of factors, such as urban, rural, 

or remote rural location, and anything else that will help to foster the equitable distribution of a finite amount of funds. 

4. Guarantee an Adequate, Minimum Funding Amount to Every Applicant. Ensure that every applicant regardless of its size and location receives a meaningful, minimum amount of funding in its annual E-Rate budget. Higher discountrate and remote-rural applicants would receive proportionally higher minimum 

amounts, respectively, than lower discount rate and urban applicants. 

5. Permit applicants to allocate some or all of their annual budgets to any consortium application in which they wish to participate (except for state networks) 

and, for state network consortium applications, set aside a specific amount of 

annual funding. 

6. Reset Budget Amounts Annually. Every year, well before the window application period opens, the Commission would set the per school student and per 

library patron (or other variable) budget amount for the next funding year. 

7. Make Funding Specific, Predictable, and Sufficient. Assure applicants that 

their E-Rate budgets will remain relatively constant from one year to the next, 

subject only to fluctuations in the size of the populations they serve and any 

additional funding that might become available. 

8. Permit Applicants to Set Their Own Priorities. Permit applicants to allocate 

their annual E-Rate budget entirely as they see fit among eligible services in 

any category and to any of the eligible buildings in their school districts and 

library systems—regardless of what any particular site’s discount rate may 

be—as was the Program’s intent originally. Note: site specific services would 

continue to receive discounts at whatever the specific site’s discount rate might 

be, 90 percent, 80 percent, 70 percent, and so on. Thus money spent to buy 

eligible services for a 90 percent school will stretch an applicant’s budget much 

farther than money spent to buy the same services for a 60 percent school. 

Note further: these are the kinds of decisions that should, and under this 

framework would be, made locally. 

57 

Benefits of FFL’s Proposed E-Rate 2.0 Framework 

The FFL proposal is a data-driven, yet practical solution, based on a recommendation of the 2003 USAC Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Task Force. Placing a limit on the 

discounts received by any one applicant is a minimal change to the existing system, 

but this minor alteration will produce the following benefits: 

• Increases accountability, flexibility, and predictability 

• Builds on successful aspects of current E-Rate Program 

• Creates predictable and more reliable annual funding commitments 

• Enables USAC to issue funding decisions more quickly 

• Promotes efficient use and equitable distribution of E-Rate funding 

• Encourages technology planning and prioritization 

• Enables applicants to set their own priorities 

• Avoids ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ technology mandates 

• Provides all applicants access to some support 

• Maintains a sliding scale of support for all applicants, with the highest discounts and most support going to applicants with the highest documented need. 

• Encourages accurate funding requests by applicants 

• Reduces waste and abuse 

• Eliminates need for the much-maligned and seemingly ineffective 2-in-5 rule 

• Enables applicants to set their local priorities 

• Reduces excessive and/or frivolous funding requests 

• Reduces or removes incentives to replace equipment too soon or to gold plate 

networks 

• Eliminates incentives to game the current funding priority system 

• Protects against ‘‘mega’’ funding requests 

• Limits waste/fraud/abuse potential per entity 

• Accommodates future increase(s) to fund without retooling the program 

• Works with all other changes being discussed in the E-Rate community 

• Reduces or eliminates the need for other programmatic changes 

• Could facilitate individual applicant ‘‘rollover’’ one year to next and/or multiyear funding commitments 

• Allows for the addition of new services to the eligible services list without 

‘‘breaking the bank’’ 

Respectfully submitted, 

JOHN D. HARRINGTON, 

Chief Executive Officer, 

Funds For Learning, LLC. 

58 

ATTACHMENTS


717HARR8.eps
59 


717HARR9.eps 717HARR10.eps
60 


717HARR11.eps 717HARR12.eps
61 


717HARR13.eps 717HARR14.eps
62 


717HARR15.eps 717HARR16.eps
63 


717HARR17.eps 717HARR18.eps
64 


717HARR19.eps 717HARR20.eps
65 


717HARR21.eps 717HARR22.eps
66 


717HARR23.eps 717HARR24.eps
67 


717HARR25.eps 717HARR26.eps
68 


717HARR27.eps 717HARR28.eps
69 


717HARR29.eps 717HARR30.eps
70 


717HARR31.eps 717HARR32.eps
71 


717HARR33.eps 717HARR34.eps
72 


717HARR35.eps 717HARR36.eps
73 


717HARR37.eps 717HARR38.eps
74 


717HARR39.eps 717HARR40.eps
75 


717HARR41.eps 717HARR42.eps
76 


717HARR43.eps 717HARR44.eps
77 


717HARR45.eps 717HARR46.eps
78 


717HARR47.eps 717HARR48.eps
79 


717HARR49.eps 717HARR50.eps
80 


717HARR51.eps 717HARR52.eps
81 


717HARR53.eps 717HARR54.eps
82 


717HARR55.eps 717HARR56.eps
83 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

SHERYL R. ABSHIRE

Question 1. Rural Service. As a library specialist and veteran who e-mailed me 

from Hibbing, Minnesota this week pointed out, the role of libraries is more than 

just a resource with books, they are a resource for services and information that 

help keep our communities strong, vibrant and connected. This is extremely true in 

rural areas where ‘‘anchor institutions’’ like schools, libraries and health clinics are 

the first places to get new broadband services, which tends to lead to better commercial services being available to residents. Ms. Abshire—Can you share how ERate in the past has improved the expansion of connections within communities and 

how you envision modernization would link up communities in the future? 

Answer. Increased connectivity to the schools in Calcasieu Parish has provided a 

benefit to the entire community. Various initiatives that have provided last-mile 

buildout have supported the ability to access higher-speed connections both for the 

schools and the community at large. 

Question 2. STEM—Schools. I am a strong supporter of increasing technology in 

the classroom. If we want our students to go on to be the next scientists, engineers, 

and innovators of tomorrow, they need early exposure to advanced technology in the 

classroom today. Ms. Abshire—Can you talk about how investments in broadband 

infrastructure and innovative programs can help expand our students’ exposure to 

cutting-edge technology and training? 

Answer. Increased investment in broadband infrastructure is absolutely critical to 

supporting access to cutting-edge technology and training programs. High speed 

broadband connections can support virtual fieldtrips, learning videos such as Khan 

Academy, interactive science experiments, and much more. Schools have even conducted live forums with astronauts at the International Space Station. 

Question 2a. Ms. Abshire—What type of impact does access to hands on interactive learning through connected devices have on student interest in STEM subjects? 

Answer. Access to hands on interactive learning through connected devices and 

high speed broadband connectivity engages students in collaborative, project-based 

learning in ways that were not possible just a few years ago. Additionally, with 

high-speed broadband connectivity students in rural areas whose schools may not 

offer an advanced science or math course now have the opportunity to engage in 


717HARR57.eps
84 

interactive online learning that will prepare them to pursue STEM majors and 

eventually STEM careers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

SHERYL R. ABSHIRE

Question 1. I have heard from Arkansas teachers that the E-Rate program has 

complex procedures and reporting requirements. Has this been your experience? 

How would you like to see the E-Rate application process simplified? 

Answer. The E-Rate application process has been modernized significantly since 

the program’s inception in 1998. When the E-Rate program began, it was a paper 

application based program. Last year, when Calcasieu Parish filed its application, 

we did not use any paper—our application was filed online. Many applicants have 

followed suit and are filing their applications online as well, although the paper filing option remains if applicants wish to utilize that option. Over the years, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) has made great progress in continuously improving the online application process. For example, application processes 

that used to take myself and my administrative assistant two weeks to accomplish, 

now take approximately 4 hours. This is not to say that further improvement regarding the application process cannot and should not be made and I support continued efforts to simplify and streamline the application process while maintaining 

program integrity. For example, I have supported the concept of an Evergreen 470 

application, which would allow for multi-year applications for services that are in 

a multi-year contract. Additionally, encouraging—but not requiring consortia applications—and making further improvements to the applicant online experience could 

further reduce burden to applicants. 

Question 2. In your testimony, you said the increased demand, coupled with the 

cap on E-Rate’s funds, will lead to a de-facto elimination of Priority 2 funding as 

those requests are not fulfilled until Priority 1 commitments have been funded. In 

addition to more E-Rate funding, how would you envision modernizing the Priority 

1/Priority 2 funding mechanism? 

Answer. The central issue for E-Rate truly is the funding shortage. Demand for 

bandwidth in schools has drastically changed since 1998 with the increased use of 

digital tools, online learning and communication, devices, and online assessments 

that can provide individualized feedback and personalize learning. The current demand figure is likely tamped down demand as many districts below the 90 percent 

discount level no longer even apply for Priority 2 (internal connections) funding 

since they are unlikely to receive such funds. This is why I believe we need a permanent increase in the E-Rate cap that at least meets current program demand and 

remains focused on the core mission of the program. Although not perfect, the Priority 1/Priority 2 system provides an important data point to track demand for ERate services and helps USAC continue to ensure the integrity of the program and 

that all applicants receive at least some support. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

SHERYL R. ABSHIRE

Question 1. Mr. Coulter’s testimony notes that ‘‘five years ago, the national implementation of educational technology in a large-scale fashion would have been prohibitively expensive with $1,000 work-stations, shrink-wrapped sub-par software 

and torn up walls to wire school buildings. Today, thanks to the plummeting costs 

of tablet computers, innovative cloud-based software and enterprise Wi-Fi technology, implementation is affordable and achievable.’’ He also acknowledged that ‘‘ERate currently supports operating expenditures but does not incentivize long-term 

investment in fiber.’’ What do you recommend we do to better focus E-Rate on longterm investments? 

Answer. In Calcasieu Parish, we have relied on strong leadership to conduct appropriate needs assessment and technology planning so that we make prudent investments for our technology needs of today and our needs in the future. In the future, the use of multi-year applications and consortia applications may even further 

improve the efficiency and long term functioning of the E-Rate program. 

While I am aware of proposals to prioritize one technology over another and understand that there may be some long term value in doing so, I would urge policymakers to consider two of the bedrock core values of E-Rate before establishing new 

priorities: (1) the program has always been technologically neutral and has never 

picked technology winners or losers; and (2) the program has always been locally 

85 

driven, allowing applicants to choose services and technologies that make the best 

sense for their needs and budgets. Moreover, I would urge policymakers to consider 

carefully the economic ramifications on the program overall and on applicants individually of prioritizing potentially expensive technologies over more economical 

ones. 

Question 1a. It seems to me that some of the E-rate eligible services, such as paging, are outdated. Should the list of eligible services be revisited? If so, are there 

any services that you believe should be removed? Are there any that you believe 

are missing from the list? 

Answer. While I do believe that some careful pruning of the list may be in order, 

I would urge the FCC to be very careful not to eliminate services that remain valuable despite their age and that help provide some form and substance to the increased bandwidth that all applicants seek. I am mindful of my district’s own experiences after Hurricane Rita when E-Rate supported infrastructure and e-mail systems allowed Calcasieu Parish to stay connected—to learning and each other. Talk 

of eliminating support for relatively inexpensive services, like e-mail and collaboration tools, all of which facilitate parents, teachers and students communicating and 

collaborating, strike me as penny wise and pound foolish. 

Question 1b. Is it possible to incentivize long-term investments without increasing 

the overall cost of the E-Rate program? 

Answer. It is critical that the long-term sustainability and health of the E-Rate 

program be a top priority. While investment in fiber can be the best and cost-effective solution for high-speed broadband connectivity for some districts, it is also important that all schools—small, big, urban, suburban, and rural—retain the flexibility they need to make the technology decisions that work best for their circumstances and that the program stay true to its statutory mandate to set rules 

that are competitively (and technologically) neutral. 

Question 1c. How could E-rate be modified to enable the deployment of enterprise 

Wi-Fi? Might this help to lower overall costs or to provide services that currently 

fall beyond the funding cap? 

Answer. There is no question that wireless access in our Nation’s schools is rapidly growing in importance. For instance, the Calcasieu Parish School network currently supports 35,000 network devices over a Wide Area Network (WAN) connection that delivers a 100 mbps connection. Additionally, the network contains 3,000 

wireless access points which have become increasingly important as Bring Your 

Own Device (BYOD) programs and 1:1 device initiatives continue to be implemented 

to enhance the digital learning experience. It may make sense for the Commission 

to consider moving wireless access point eligibility from Priority 2 to Priority 1 in 

order to allow applicants greater opportunity to improve their existing wireless access. However, the Commission should consider the impact that such a move would 

have on available funds. 

Question 2. There is very little data available on the capacity and speed of current 

school networks. Would it be beneficial to require schools who apply for E-rate funding to provide data on the speed and capacity of their networks? If not, why not? 

Answer. Data is crucial to ensure the continued longevity and success of the ERate program and to ensure that we are providing access to educational opportunity 

for students no matter what part of the country they live in or where they attend 

school. Specifically, data regarding speed and capacity of applicants’ broadband networks would inform the creation of reasonable and flexible bandwidth goals or targets for the E-Rate program as a whole. At the same time, any data collection must 

minimize the burden on applicants and be in sync with the overall goal of streamlining the administration of the E-Rate program. 

Question 2a. Should a minimum bandwidth or speed level be implemented? If so, 

what should this level be based on (i.e., number of users/school, demand for bandwidth)? 

Answer. Bandwidth targets should be an important aspect of any E-Rate modernization effort. It is no longer sufficient to note the existence of the connection 

itself as the future of digital learning depends on the depth of the connection. As 

schools continue to integrate digital content, devices, online learning and communication portals, and online assessments, high-bandwidth connections will be critical. Any goals or targets, though, need to be based on demand and data and must 

take into account the varying needs of rural, urban, and suburban schools and libraries rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. My district of Calcasieu Parish 

Schools covers 1,036 square miles in southwest Louisiana and includes urban, suburban and deeply rural areas, all of which have varying needs that should be determined at the local level. Additionally, I am leery of any goals that become mandates, 

where applicants are denied additional funding upon reaching such goals or reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
86 

quired to spend their own money to meet goals that do not necessarily reflect their 

own needs. 

Question 2b. How can this data be plugged into the National Broadband Map? 

Answer. The National Broadband Map is an important initiative that provides 

data regarding the level and type of high-speed Internet services that are available 

and in use across the country. Currently, one can search by various categories, such 

as congressional districts, and see a wide variety of information including broadband 

speeds and subscription levels for homes, businesses, K–12 schools and libraries, 

and more. One can also search for community anchor institutions within 25 miles 

of a particular address and find the type of technology and subscribed speed if such 

data is available. Additional readily available and searchable information regarding 

current broadband capacity of schools and libraries would further the goals of the 

National Broadband Map and universal service. 

Question 3. In the past, E-Rate funded connections have been audited to ensure 

that only school/library traffic was riding on the subsidized connection, which resulted in high usage during the typical school day and unused capacity during evenings, weekends, and school vacations. Should E-Rate 2.0 include provisions that 

could support home-based broadband connectivity for students? If not, why not? 

Answer. As digital learning continues to expand at school, access to the Internet 

at home is increasingly important for students to stay connected, conduct research, 

and complete homework assignments. However, the E-Rate program’s central purpose is ensure that schools and libraries have access to advanced telecommunications and information services and there are limited resources available to accomplish that goal. Although I support efforts to increase at home broadband access, 

demand for currently eligible E-Rate services for 2013 was $4.986 billion dollars, or 

more than double the $2.25 billion annual cap that was set for the program back 

in 1998. Demand for bandwidth in schools has drastically changed since 1998 with 

the increased use of digital tools, online learning and communication, devices, and 

online assessments that can provide individualized feedback and personalize learning. The current demand figure is likely tamped down demand as many districts 

below the 90 percent discount level no longer even apply for Priority 2 (internal connections) funding since they are unlikely to receive such funds. Even with the inflation adjustment and roll-over funds, there may not be enough funds to fund Priority 

2 projects at the 90 percent discount level. This is why I believe we need a permanent increase in the E-Rate cap that at least meets current program demand and 

remains focused on the core mission of the program. 

Question 3a. Do you believe E-Rate funded connections could be leveraged during 

these ‘‘down’’ periods to provide for load balancing and added technology availability 

for the campus/community? If so, do you have any suggestions regarding how this 

type of function could be utilized without a large increase in costs or in concerns 

about the accountability of the program? 

Answer. In 2010, the FCC made permanent a rule that allows schools—if they so 

choose—to open their doors after hours so that the community at large can utilize 

the schools broadband connections that are supported by the E-Rate program. 

Schools around the country have leveraged this opportunity to provide a place for 

students to complete assignments, provide digital literacy classes and other community services, and provide access to the online world that hosts government services, 

job applications, and distance education. Under this rule, E-Rate supported services 

must still be used primarily for educational purposes and students must have first 

priority in the use of E-Rate supported services, use of E-Rate supported services 

by the community at large may only occur after school hours on school premises, 

and schools may not request more E-Rate support than is needed to support educational purposes for the student population. This rule change struck the appropriate balance between ensuring the statutory objective of the E-Rate program— 

that schools and libraries have access to advanced telecommunications and information services for educational purposes—and the important aim of facilitating access 

to those services to the community at large during nights, weekends, and school vacations. This careful balance ensures that the program and its resources are prudently allocated first to the school for the benefit of its students and that program 

accountability and integrity is maintained. 

Question 4. On June 6, 2013, the Administration unveiled a new initiative called 

ConnectED, which intends to connect 99 percent of America’s students to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed wireless within 5 years. Do you 

have any recommendations for the FCC or Congress in terms of how E-Rate can 

be better aligned to support curriculum or technology training goals? 

Answer. E-Rate has been incredibly successful in providing nearly all classrooms 

with a basic connection to the Internet. In the future, the main obstacle to continue 

87 

success is the severe funding shortage that currently exists in the E-Rate program. 

This is why I am advocating for a permanent increase to the E-Rate cap that at 

least meets current demand. The current cap was set back in 1998, before tablets, 

smartphones, and many of the digital learning opportunities of today existed. In 

order to support the use of these digital learning tools and to provide students with 

the 21st century skills they will need to succeed in our global economy, schools will 

need high-speed broadband connectivity moving forward. 

Question 4a. Could Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) Title II funds, typically allocated for teacher training, be used in a different manner to ensure teachers 

are trained to integrate educational technology into their instruction? 

Answer. Ongoing, embedded teacher training—or professional development/professional learning—is critical for digital learning to be successful in the classroom. 

Technology professional development supports teachers in learning new ways to use 

technology to redesign curriculum, individualize instruction, increase student engagement, incorporate technology into the classroom, and utilize online assessment 

data to personalize learning. The current Title IIA, much like the E-Rate, is undergoing a funding crisis as it continues to absorb sequestration cuts. Thus, it is hard 

to repurpose funding from a pool that is already spoken for and is shrinking. 

As an alternative, I support funding the existing Title IID or currently unpassed 

legislation to revamp it—The Enhancing Education Through Technology Act of 2013 

(S. 1087)/The Transforming Technology through Technology Act (HR 521). The current program and both bills include a strong emphasis on technology professional 

development. In the past, when districts used to receive EETT funding, they were 

required to spend at least 25 percent of their grants on professional development— 

however; many districts reportedly allocated significantly higher percentages of 

their grant funds towards professional development activities. New education technology legislation—with a focus on education technology professional development— 

is a critical partner to E-Rate’s connectivity support. 

Question 4b. Is Title I participation the ‘‘right’’ basis for subsidy calculations or 

should it be based on technology need and the actual dollars necessary to reach a 

desired speed/capacity level and sustain it over time? 

Answer. The E-Rate discount matrix—which allocates a discount for E-Rate eligible services based on the percentage of students who qualify for free-and-reducedlunch—has allowed all schools across the country to connect to the Internet and 

build their network infrastructure. The program has always focused on ensuring 

that no matter how low-income your students or how rural or remote your location, 

E-Rate support would help connect your classrooms and libraries. No matter what 

the Commission decides, I believe truly that poverty and rurality must remain a significant factor in calculating support. 

In terms of reaching national targets, accounting for bandwidth targets may make 

sense. However, significant data collection to determine existing levels and determine appropriate targets would be required before changing the formula. 

Question 4c. How do we effectively harness the opportunities enabled by technology to train or retrain individuals to enter sectors that will experience high 

growth? 

Answer. Comprehensive technology planning, leadership, ongoing professional development for educators, and a wide array of digital learning opportunities for students supported by robust connectivity will provide students with the skills they 

need to succeed in 21st century careers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

LINDA H. LORD

Question 1. During the E-Rate hearing, we were told that schools apply for far 

more E-Rate funds than are available. Speaking as the State Librarian, are libraries 

facing a similar gap between demand and availability? Are they receiving any Priority 2 funding? What other considerations should be taken into account for libraries? 

Answer. Libraries face the same issues as schools in the lack of adequate funding 

to meet applicant demand for Internet services. In reality most libraries that fall 

under the 80 percent discount band no longer apply for Priority 2 funding since 

there is not enough funding to fulfill the applicant requests below even the mid-80 

percent range. In fact in Funding Year 2013, applicant demand for Priority 1 services alone eclipsed the total amount of funds available. In 2013 applicants requested 

$2.00 for every $1.00 available. Libraries across the country have seen a dramatic 

rise in Internet use and in providing services that require high bandwidth connecVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
88 

tions. In 2012, 62 percent of libraries reported they were the only source of free public access to computers and the Internet (in Arkansas it is 58 percent). This is especially important for rural communities where the number rises to 70 percent. With 

so many critical life tasks only online, the public library is a lifeline for many communities and the residents they serve. 

We expect the demand for high-capacity applications and services to continue and 

libraries are feeling a crunch similar to that faced by schools. While library bandwidth speeds are improving, only about 9 percent reported that they had Internet 

speeds of 100Mbps or greater (only 5 percent of rural libraries). This is simply 

unsustainable given the reliance of communities across the country on their public 

library. 

One idea is to enable libraries to own their own wide area networks (WANs) 

where it is the most cost effective solution. This will help libraries plan for longterm cost savings. Amortizing the cost of network deployment over 4–5 years will 

help keep the annual cost lower and may encourage more investment, especially in 

rural areas that need greater bandwidth even when costs tend to be higher. 

The following information is from the state E-Rate coordinator in Arkansas. 

‘‘Arkansas has 222 public libraries and 58 percent participate in the E-Rate program. While the vast majority of libraries technically receive broadband Internet access, they may be getting only 1.5 Mbps for the entire library. 

‘‘For FY 2013, 130 of the 222 Arkansas public libraries applied for E-Rate. Of 

the applicant libraries, 38 (29 percent) were at the 90 percent discount level. 

Eighty-two applicant libraries (63 percent) qualified for an 80 percent discount. 

Only ten applicant libraries (8 percent) were below the 80 percent discount 

level. If all 222 Arkansas public libraries applied, I believe that the same discount percentage distribution would occur. 

‘‘Since FY 2010, only five libraries have applied for P2, and none have received 

the funding. All five libraries were at the 80 percent discount level. In FY 2011 

and FY 2012, P2 funding was not available at the 80 percent discount level, resulting in denials for Baxter County Library and Central Arkansas Library System. In FY 2010, Columbia County Library System cancelled their P2 application during review due to the very long and tedious PIA [Program Integrity Assurance] review process. Columbia County Library determined that pursuing P2 

funding was a negative return on their investment. It required too much time 

to navigate the application review process when weighed against of the amount 

of money requested. Columbia County Library’s experience illustrates perfectly 

why many Arkansas public libraries do not apply for P2. The P2 application and 

review process is too much work, especially if the discount percentage rarely 

drops below 90 percent. The delay in P2 funding is also a problem for potential 

applicants. The poorest libraries need to know if they will receive P2 funding 

before they start large internal connections projects. They cannot afford the cost 

of the projects without E-Rate support. 

The difficult, multi-step application process stops a number of libraries from applying for E-Rate discounts. The most rural and economically challenged libraries do not have enough staff to devote to the E-Rate application filing process. 

If the application process is simplified and streamlined, I feel that more Arkansas public libraries will apply for E-Rate.’’ 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

LINDA H. LORD

Question 1. Rural Service. As a library specialist and veteran who e-mailed me 

from Hibbing, Minnesota this week pointed out, the role of libraries is more than 

just a resource with books, they are a resource for services and information that 

help keep our communities strong, vibrant and connected. This is extremely true in 

rural areas where ‘‘anchor institutions’’ like schools, libraries and health clinics are 

the first places to get new broadband services, which tends to lead to better commercial services being available to residents. Ms. Lord—Can you share how E-Rate 

in the past has improved the expansion of connections within communities and how 

you envision modernization would link up communities in the future? 

Answer. Generally, when an anchor institution, like a library, is connected to 

broadband that paves the way for further broadband build-out in the community 

which ultimately benefits the entire community. In a rural state like Maine our 

small communities are the backbone of our economy and the need for connectivity 

that supports our small businesses and entrepreneurs is great. It is also critically 

important that our rural residents can connect to services that may not be readily 

89 

available in more remote areas. Our libraries are the lifeline for our rural communities. In one village, we had a gentleman who is a video producer and uses the 

library to upload video files to send to his clients all over the world because his 

Internet at home is not fast enough to allow for such large uploads. In Maine this 

story is not uncommon, with many libraries reporting that home businesses stay 

alive by using the library Wi-Fi connection. At the state library we provide our patrons with Skype for connecting to family and friends and our video conferencing 

service is tremendously popular. My example of school students exploring a Smithsonian program virtually will become more commonplace as technologies advance. 

I envision a growing need for such high-capacity services. Libraries will continue to 

be an important hub in rural communities. 

Question 2. Jobs and Employment. Minnesota has an unemployment rate of 5.3 

percent—this is two points below the national average. However, we also know that 

many veterans and new graduates in my state and around the country continue to 

have issues securing good jobs either in their home towns or wherever they chose 

to live. Ms. Lord—What do you see as both the role of libraries in assisting those 

in these demographic groups, as well as others, with job seeking resources? What 

do you view as the future of libraries in partnerships to accommodate job training 

courses either at the facilities offering computer training courses, or accommodating 

more online education opportunities? 

Answer. Librarians now consider the provision of public Internet services to job 

seekers the most important service they provide to their communities. Ninety percent of libraries provide access to jobs databases, a number which has been steadily 

growing in recent years. The majority of libraries also provide civil service examination materials. They also provide software and other resources so that patrons can 

create resumes and other necessary materials for gaining employment. Patrons develop and expand digital literacy skills, search for and apply for jobs online, and 

complete professional certifications and continuing education courses using the public access computers and library Internet or Wi-Fi with their own devices. Along 

with specific resources for job seekers, 90 percent of libraries offer some type of formal or informal technology training. Often these classes and supports take the form 

of developing skills needed for today’s workforce. 

According to a 2010 report form the Institute of Museum and Library Services, 

30 million library users went to the library specifically for employment related activities like searching and applying for a job, building a resume, and interviewing. 

Out of these visits, about 16 percent of the people were eventually hired. Many libraries partner with local workforce agencies to help extend their career and employment services in what are known as One-Stop Career Centers. The vital role 

libraries have in promoting workforce development was formally recognized in 2010 

by a partnership between IMLS and the Department of Labor Employment and 

Training Administration. The partnership particularly recognizes not only the Internet access, but also the role of the librarian who serves as an ‘‘information navigator.’’ Other libraries focus on small business development, providing tools for entrepreneurs to start a business or to further market a budding one. 

Libraries are dedicated to addressing the needs of specific populations in their 

communities and routinely structure programs that are tailored to seniors, nonEnglish speakers, youth, as well as Veterans. As I mentioned in my testimony, 

Maine has a videoconferencing service that we have used recently with the lawyers 

in libraries program for a session devoted to Veterans’ benefits. An attorney specializing in Veteran’s benefits was ‘‘live’’ in the host library and the session was available to any patron of the seven participating libraries. Beyond this valuable service 

that allows our rural communities to gain access to legal advice on topics critically 

important, I would like to share a few more Maine examples of work we do to support our Veterans. We know that Veterans often have significant challenges in securing employment and a number of our libraries tailor their workforce programs 

to focus on Veterans. The Augusta Career Center recently had a workshop for Veterans that walked the participants through the resources available through the 

state library’s Information Commons, specifically focusing on employment skills and 

resources. Equally important to library services are programs that encourage lifelong learning as we see this as foundational to being prepared for future work and 

life opportunities. A creative program that supports this concept was held in the 

Camden Public Library. The library just finished a 10-week writer’s group series 

called ‘‘Veteran’s for Peace’’. The workshop was run by a Veteran who was also a 

retired writing teacher. I heard that those who attended appreciated the opportunity 

to talk and write about their war experiences with a group that understood them 

and their background. I know that similar examples are replicated in libraries 

across the country. 

90 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

LINDA H. LORD

Question 1. Mr. Coulter’s testimony notes that ‘‘five years ago, the national implementation of educational technology in a large-scale fashion would have been prohibitively expensive with $1,000 work-stations, shrink-wrapped sub-par software 

and torn up walls to wire school buildings. Today, thanks to the plummeting costs 

of tablet computers, innovative cloud-based software and enterprise Wi-Fi technology, implementation is affordable and achievable.’’ He also acknowledged that ‘‘ERate currently supports operating expenditures but does not incentivize long-term 

investment in fiber.’’ What do you recommend we do to better focus E-Rate on longterm investments? 

Answer. Libraries and their connectivity needs vary state by state and community-by-community so it is very important to promote solutions that are flexible 

enough to meet local needs. But I can tell you that, when a library adds incremental 

capacity, it often discovers that its broadband usage surges to the new maximum 

capacity immediately by patrons using bandwidth-intensive applications. There is 

no ‘‘quick fix’’ and libraries need to plan their broadband for the long-term. Generally fiber is going to be the best long-term investment (where it is economical and 

not cost prohibitive because once installed it is relatively easy to expand capacity 

to meet growth in demand). Enabling the ownership of wide area networks (WANs) 

by E-Rate applicants where it is the most cost effective solution will help applicants 

think about long-term cost savings (such as a 4–5 year return on initial investment). 

Amortizing the cost of network deployment over 4–5 years will help keep the annual 

cost lower and may encourage more investment, especially in rural areas that need 

greater bandwidth even though costs tend to be higher. 

Question 1a. It seems to me that some of the E-Rate eligible services, such as paging, are outdated. Should the list of eligible services be revisited? If so, are there 

any services that you believe should be removed? Are there any that you believe 

are missing from the list? 

Answer. We have an important opportunity to focus on moving libraries from simple connectivity to high-capacity broadband. In my role as chair of ALA’s E-Rate 

Task Force, I can tell you that we are looking carefully at legacy services that may 

not directly support broadband connectivity, such as Plain Old Telephone Service 

(POTS). While many small libraries apply only for POTS and there are areas where 

alternatives are either unavailable or cost prohibitive, it is vitally important that 

libraries seek ways to increase their broadband connectivity. We do believe that it 

will be critical to develop a phase-out process of such legacy services so that applicants can transition as smoothly and cost-effectively as possible. We are also reviewing the eligible services list to make sure libraries are able to receive discounts on 

services that are necessary for broadband connectivity. 

Question 1b. Is it possible to incentivize long-term investments without increasing 

the overall cost of the E-Rate program? 

Answer. Incentivizing long-term investments (such as construction costs for fiber 

builds amortized over several years) does not necessarily end up costing the program more, and in the case of WAN ownership likely will result in savings. Spending wisely is a good start and should be a focus of the program for both applicants 

and providers. However, savings through prudent purchasing will not solve the 

chronic underfunding of the program when applicant demand already hovers at double the funds available. 

Question 1c. How could E-Rate be modified to enable the deployment of enterprise 

Wi-Fi? Might this help to lower overall costs or to provide services that currently 

fall beyond the funding cap? 

Answer. It is possible that providing greater funding for Wi-Fi service inside the 

building may reduce the need to purchase other more expensive wireless services. 

This is an issue that the FCC is currently exploring in its E-Rate reform proceeding. 

Question 2. There is very little data available on the capacity and speed of current 

school networks. Would it be beneficial to require schools who apply for E-Rate 

funding to provide data on the speed and capacity of their networks? If not, why 

not? 

Answer. Because I can only speak from a library perspective, I cannot speak to 

whether or not schools should be subject to this requirement. I will only point out 

that the ALA has conducted several surveys of the broadband capabilities of libraries, which are available at www.plinternetsurvey.org. 

Question 2a. Should a minimum bandwidth or speed level be implemented? If so, 

what should this level be based on (i.e., number of users/school, demand for bandwidth)? 

91 

Answer. One success of the program is that it has always been based on the needs 

of the applicant. We want to encourage libraries to be forward thinking and plan 

for future bandwidth needs and goals can be aspirational in that regard. ALA is 

looking at several options for setting a library bandwidth target that take into account the diverse nature of libraries in different rural and urban settings, with different services areas, and that accounts of desktop computers as well as patron and 

library mobile devices. Rather than a mandated bandwidth speed, I think it more 

productive to determine targets with benchmarks along the way that encourage applicants to make decisions based on projecting future connectivity needs while also 

acknowledging current concerns like the cost of fiber in some areas. 

Question 2b. How can this data be plugged into the National Broadband Map? 

Answer. ALA has worked with NTIA to improve the data for libraries, and I 

would encourage the FCC to add any new data elements to the map that are related 

to libraries and schools so that the public can have access to accurate and current 

broadband availability information. 

Question 3. In the past, E-Rate funded connections have been audited to ensure 

that only school/library traffic was riding on the subsidized connection, which resulted in high usage during the typical school day and unused capacity during evenings, weekends, and school vacations. Should E-Rate 2.0 include provisions that 

could support home-based broadband connectivity for students? If not, why not? 

Answer. Because the program is so underfunded and cannot meet current demand 

from applicants for services currently eligible, I would be extremely reluctant to 

support new programs, however important they might be. E-Rate is fundamentally 

about connecting libraries and schools, and I would like the focus to remain on this 

so that both can continue to provide the services they do for K12 students and the 

general public. 

Question 3a. Do you believe E-Rate funded connections could be leveraged during 

these ‘‘down’’ periods to provide for load balancing and added technology availability 

for the campus/community? If so, do you have any suggestions regarding how this 

type of function could be utilized without a large increase in costs or in concerns 

about the accountability of the program? 

Answer. Schools can currently allow the public to use their E-Rate supported 

Internet after hours and of course libraries are the ‘‘after school hours’’ facility. At 

this time I believe that we should be primarily concerned about addressing the 

funding shortfall and the additional burden on the already oversubscribed program. 

There are likely to be many issues with oversight and reporting that would have 

to be weighed before initiating such a program within E-Rate. 

Question 4. On June 6, 2013, the Administration unveiled a new initiative called 

ConnectED, which intends to connect 99 percent of America’s students to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed wireless within 5 years. Do you 

have any recommendations for the FCC or Congress in terms of how E-Rate can 

be better aligned to support curriculum or technology training goals? 

Answer. The E-Rate program is fundamentally about connecting libraries and 

schools with telecommunications and broadband services. I do not believe that educational or training benchmarks and goals should be hinged to the E-Rate program. 

If libraries and schools have the bandwidth they need to support educational opportunity for patrons and students, they will be best equipped to incorporate the best 

technologies into the curriculum and give our students and the general public the 

technology skills they need to be productive. 

Question 4a. Could Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) Title II funds, typically allocated for teacher training, be used in a different manner to ensure teachers 

are trained to integrate educational technology into their instruction? 

Answer. Yes, school librarians should be included as eligible to participate in 

ESEA funded training. In many schools today, school librarians are key to creating 

opportunities for teachers’ meaningful use of technology, as well as increasing teachers’ capacity for integrating the use of technology tools into specific learning tasks 

and curricula. These librarians are integral to the creation of digital media and content for both student and teacher use in and out of the classroom and school building. By including school librarians in training opportunities supported by ESEA 

funds, they will be better equipped to develop appropriate uses of technology tools 

that build on educational standards resulting in more students attaining their educational goals. Furthermore, school librarians with proper training will also be able 

to work with other school professionals to integrate educational technology into the 

classroom. 

92 

Question 4b. Is Title 1 participation the ‘‘right’’ basis for subsidy calculations or 

should it be based on technology need and the actual dollars necessary to reach a 

desired speed/capacity level and sustain it over time? 

Answer. The American Library Association is currently investigating the best poverty calculation tool that most accurately reflects the poverty level of the library 

service area. At the same time the E-Rate program, because it is a discount program, allows applicants to base their requests for services on their local technology 

needs and through the competitive bidding process applicants must be judicious in 

selecting the most cost effective solutions. 

Question 4c. How do we effectively harness the opportunities enabled by technology to train or retrain individuals to enter sectors that will experience high 

growth? 

Answer. Librarians report that supporting job seekers, including training for the 

21st century workforce is the most important service they provide their communities. There is a great example in Carson City, Nevada that highlights what can 

be possible with partnerships and a drive to use technology to innovate and revitalize workforce opportunities. The public library has set up a 4,000-square-foot 

branch in a downtown storefront. The branch anchors the Business Resource Information Center (BRIC), a catalyst for a major economic renewal in the state capital. 

The library branch helps entrepreneurs with market research, business planning 

classes, computers, and electronic resources such as sophisticated business-focused 

databases. The library is part of the Knowledge + Discovery Center that has stateof-the-art digital media labs to train students in high-tech skills and a business incubation facility to encourage more entrepreneurs to build on what are currently six 

acres of parking lots. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

PATRICK FINN

Question. In your testimony, you said that E-Rates rules and funding decisions 

between Priority 1 and Priority 2 services are outdated. If this distinction is fully 

eliminated, is there a danger that, while some schools will receive support for their 

internal connections, others will not receive support for basic Internet access? How 

do you envision removing the Priority 1/Priority 2 distinction? 

Answer. Networks operate as a whole and so it is just as important to have internal connections as it is to have Internet access. The current Priority system often 

leads to many schools only receiving E-Rate funding for Internet access and nothing 

for internal connections. Indeed, if nothing is changed, it is likely that there will 

be no funding for any school for internal connections in the future. We must migrate 

to a system where both aspects of connecting students and teachers are equally 

funded. By removing the Priority system, all eligible requests will be treated the 

same, with the exception of the overall school discount level. Between making the 

program more efficient and providing the necessary funds, the E-Rate should be 

able to support both aspects of networking in all schools. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

PATRICK FINN

Question. Rural Service. As a library specialist and veteran who e-mailed me from 

Hibbing, Minnesota this week pointed out, the role of libraries is more than just a 

resource with books, they are a resource for services and information that help keep 

our communities strong, vibrant and connected. This is extremely true in rural 

areas where ‘‘anchor institutions’’ like schools, libraries and health clinics are the 

first places to get new broadband services, which tends to lead to better commercial 

services being available to residents. Mr. Finn—In modernizing the E-Rate program, 

could we expect to see additional deployment and improvement to broadband services in rural areas for other businesses and consumers? 

Answer. Libraries are a critical community resource and can often be the only 

way that people without Internet access at home can connect. Strengthening library 

networks is just as important as schools. As the E-Rate program is modernized and 

most schools and libraries are connected with very high speed connections, the infrastructure capacity that is brought to a location to connect the school or library 

will also be available to other businesses and consumers. Having a crucial first large 

scale customer in a particular location can be the impetus for the investment of a 

fiber or other high speed connection to a community. 

93 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

PATRICK FINN

Question 1. Mr. Coulter’s testimony notes that ‘‘five years ago, the national implementation of educational technology in a large-scale fashion would have been prohibitively expensive with $1,000 work-stations, shrink-wrapped sub-par software 

and torn up walls to wire school buildings. Today, thanks to the plummeting costs 

of tablet computers, innovative cloud-based software and enterprise Wi-Fi technology, implementation is affordable and achievable.’’ He also acknowledged that ‘‘ERate currently supports operating expenditures but does not incentivize long-term 

investment in fiber.’’ What do you recommend we do to better focus E-Rate on longterm investments? 

Question 1a. It seems to me that some of the E-rate eligible services, such as paging, are outdated. Should the list of eligible services be revisited? If so, are there 

any services that you believe should be removed? Are there any that you believe 

are missing from the list? 

Question 1b. Is it possible to incentivize long-term investments without increasing 

the overall cost of the E-Rate program? 

Question 1c. How could E-rate be modified to enable the deployment of enterprise 

Wi-Fi? Might this help to lower overall costs or to provide services that currently 

fall beyond the funding cap? 

Answer. Schools need to deploy modern networks that are capable of meeting the 

needs of current educational applications and materials. The E-Rate should be focused on supporting services and internal connections that meet that need. Outdated services should be removed from the program and replaced by more cost effective applications. Technology like Wi-Fi are already used extensively in schools and 

will certainly be the backbone of most internal networking in the schools. Wi-Fi is 

the most efficient method of connecting devices in classrooms and will allow the 

most widespread access to the overall capacity of connectivity that is brought to 

schools. Even with the use of the most efficient technology, it is still necessary to 

fund the program at levels to support today’s technology, rather than funding levels 

that were set for 1998 technology. 

Question 2. There is very little data available on the capacity and speed of current 

school networks. Would it be beneficial to require schools who apply for E-rate funding to provide data on the speed and capacity of their networks? If not, why not? 

Question 2a. Should a minimum bandwidth or speed level be implemented? If so, 

what should this level be based on (i.e., number of users/school, demand for bandwidth)? 

Question 2b. How can this data be plugged into the National Broadband Map? 

Answer. Data relating to the speed of school networks can be very useful in determining whether we are adequately meeting the educational needs of our students. 

This data could be collected easily without a meaningful increase in the administrative burden to E-Rate applicants. 

Minimum bandwidth levels should be adopted to ensure that all students have 

the opportunity to benefit from modern education methods. Cisco has just released 

a White Paper that discusses bandwidth levels in depth. A copy of the paper is attached with this response. 

Question 3. In the past, E-Rate funded connections have been audited to ensure 

that only school/library traffic was riding on the subsidized connection, which resulted in high usage during the typical school day and unused capacity during evenings, weekends, and school vacations. Should E-Rate 2.0 include provisions that 

could support home-based broadband connectivity for students? If not, why not? 

Question 3a. Do you believe E-Rate funded connections could be leveraged during 

these ‘‘down’’ periods to provide for load balancing and added technology availability 

for the campus/community? If so, do you have any suggestions regarding how this 

type of function could be utilized without a large increase in costs or in concerns 

about the accountability of the program? 

Answer. The use of networking technology in education does not stop with the 

school day, so it is important the school networks are built to support remote use 

by students. If properly implemented, school networks will see significant afternoon 

and evening traffic due to student use, but it certainly makes sense for any excess 

capacity to be made available for public use in a manner similar to public libraries. 

Question 4. On June 6, 2013, the Administration unveiled a new initiative called 

ConnectED, which intends to connect 99 percent of America’s students to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed wireless within 5 years. Do you 

94 

have any recommendations for the FCC or Congress in terms of how E-Rate can 

be better aligned to support curriculum or technology training goals? 

Question 4a. Could Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) Title II funds, typically allocated for teacher training, be used in a different manner to ensure teachers 

are trained to integrate educational technology into their instruction? 

Question 4b. Is Title I participation the ‘‘right’’ basis for subsidy calculations or 

should it be based on technology need and the actual dollars necessary to reach a 

desired speed/capacity level and sustain it over time? 

Question 4c. How do we effectively harness the opportunities enabled by technology to train or retrain individuals to enter sectors that will experience high 

growth? 

Answer. In the areas in which Cisco has expertise on networking and education, 

we have provided our recommendations on how best to modernize the E-Rate system in our White Paper which is attached to this response. 

95 

ATTACHMENT


717WHITE1.eps
96 


717WHITE2.eps
97 


717WHITE3.eps
98 


717WHITE4.eps
99 


717WHITE5.eps
100 


717WHITE6.eps
101 


717WHITE7.eps
102 


717WHITE8.eps
103 


717WHITE9.eps
104 


717WHITE10.eps
105 


717WHITE11.eps
106 


717WHITE12.eps
107 


717WHITE13.eps
108 


717WHITE14.eps
109 


717WHITE15.eps
110 


717WHITE16.eps
111 


717WHITE17.eps
112 


717WHITE18.eps
113 


717WHITE19.eps
114 


717WHITE20.eps
115 


717WHITE21.eps
116 


717WHITE22.eps
117 


717WHITE23.eps
118 


717WHITE24.eps
119 


717WHITE25.eps
120 


717WHITE26.eps
121 


717WHITE27.eps
122 


717WHITE28.eps
123 


717WHITE29.eps
124 


717WHITE30.eps
125 


717WHITE31.eps
126 


717WHITE32.eps
127 


717WHITE33.eps
128 


717WHITE34.eps
129 


717WHITE35.eps
130 


717WHITE36.eps
131 


717WHITE37.eps
132 


717WHITE38.eps
133 


717WHITE39.eps
134 


717WHITE40.eps
135 


717WHITE41.eps
136 


717WHITE42.eps
137 


717WHITE43.eps
138 

1 National Writing Project, Pew Research Center, The College Board, How Teachers Are Using 

Technology at Home and in Their Classrooms, February 28, 2013 http://www.pewinternet.org/ 

Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology.aspx 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK PRYOR TO

JAMES G. COULTER

Question 1. Considering your work on the LEAD Commission and your background with Dartmouth and Stanford, are there lessons that our K12 schools can 

learn from colleges and universities to leverage their funds to increase connectivity? 

Similarly, once connected, how can K12 schools ensure their dollars are being spent 

effectively to connect the individual students to the Internet and digital learning 

tools? 

Question 1a. I come from a rural state where our more rural and lower income 

schools have struggled to keep up technologically. In your research for the LEAD 

Commission, did you get a sense of the relative benefits that rural students receive 

as digital learning tools are brought into the classroom? How could E-Rate be improved to further reflect your findings with the Commission? 

Answer. There are a number of lessons that can be learned from colleges and universities that have effectively leveraged funds, through collaborative efforts such as 

buying through research and education networks, with both regional providers and 

national providers, such as Internet2. These efforts have resulted in colleges being 

able to provide significantly more bandwidth at lower costs than can generally be 

found in the commercial marketplace. 

Rural areas have a tremendous amount to gain if our country implements a program to bring improved bandwidth to all our country’s schools. Rural areas also 

have a lot to lose if we fail to do so. 

In February 2013, the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which explored middle and high school teacher usage of technology at home and in the classroom, found 

that the lowest income students were faced with the most challenges when trying 

to bring digital learning resources tools to the classroom.1 There is demonstrated 

demand for the implementation of technology in U.S. classrooms; however, the current rate of adoption is unacceptably slow and uneven. Digital learning must be a 

national priority to ensure that every child, regardless of socio-economic status, has 

access to the same high-quality, 21st century resources. Without equitable technology implementation in the classroom we risk further exacerbating the digital divide. This is particularly relevant for rural communities as they generally are behind urban communities in terms of the bandwidth available in their communities. 

Technology has the ability to be an incredible equalizer for traditionally underserved communities. Unfortunately, uneven technology adoption in our Nation’s 

schools risks exacerbating existing socio-economic inequality. Today, effective use of 

technology has the unique ability to reverse this trend by improving learning and 

equipping students with 21st century skills needed to be competitive in today’s global economy. For rural students it can mean access to the all kinds of advanced or 

specialized courses that without such technology, students in rural areas would not 

have access to. It can mean the same kind of personalized feedback and curriculum 

that today, only wealthier students in urban areas have access to. For all students, 

digital technology can be a tide that lifts all boats, but given the data and relative 

position of rural communities, rural communities have the most to gain by moving 

educational opportunities to the digital platform and widely distributing the bandwidth necessary to take advantage of those opportunities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR TO

JAMES G. COULTER

Question. STEM—Schools. I am a strong supporter of increasing technology in the 

classroom. If we want our students to go on to be the next scientists, engineers, and 

innovators of tomorrow, they need early exposure to advanced technology in the 

classroom today. Mr. Coulter—What type of impact does access to hands on interactive learning through connected devices have on student interest in STEM subjects? 

Answer. There is certainly anecdotal evidence that digital learning is particularly 

useful for STEM subject matters as it allows students to move at their own pace, 

enabling more naturally gifted students to move faster than traditional classrooms 

would allow, and providing the kind of feedback that allows other students to master the fundamentals before moving on to more advanced materials. It also allows 

students from across the country, including rural areas, to have access to the best 

139 

2Digital Trends, South Korean school textbooks will be all digital by 2015, July 5, 2011. 3Tablets Thrust Thai Classrooms into Digital Era, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/ 

18/tablets-thrust-thai-classrooms-into-digital-era/#ixzz2WnNdU2b3 4See Countdown begins for Turkey’s high-tech Fatih Project (May 20, 2013), http://www 

.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/news/Pages/200513-turkey-fatih-project-tender-processstart.aspx 

instructional materials in advanced and specialized courses that are often not otherwise available in many schools around the country. 

This is, as the question implies, an important issue of international competitiveness. As the LEAD Commission Report noted, many other countries are advancing 

digital learning in schools through collective national efforts to clear the pathway 

for scalability. For example, South Korea has 100 percent of schools connected to 

the Internet, 100 percent of teachers trained in digital learning and 70 percent of 

curriculum involving e-learning as a result of four national ‘‘master plans’’ for digital learning. South Korea is also moving toward all digital textbooks by 2015.2 In 

Thailand, about 850,000 tablets have already been distributed throughout urban 

and rural classrooms and, by the end of 2014, the government plans to distribute 

handheld computers to 13 million school children at a cost of about $100 each—a 

total of $1.3 billion—and then replace them every two years.3

Earlier this year, Turkey’s Prime Minister toured the U.S. to identify a technology 

provider that will supply 11 million tablets to Turkish students by 2015.4 These 

countries and others believe the earlier they put technology in the hands of students 

and make it an active part of their education the better prepared those students 

will be to participate in an increasingly tech savvy workforce. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

JAMES G. COULTER

Question 1. Mr. Coulter’s testimony notes that ‘‘five years ago, the national implementation of educational technology in a large-scale fashion would have been prohibitively expensive with $1,000 work-stations, shrink-wrapped sub-par software 

and torn up walls to wire school buildings. Today, thanks to the plummeting costs 

of tablet computers, innovative cloud-based software and enterprise Wi-Fi technology, implementation is affordable and achievable.’’ He also acknowledged that ‘‘ERate currently supports operating expenditures but does not incentivize long-term 

investment in fiber.’’ What do you recommend we do to better focus E-Rate on longterm investments? 

Answer. In 1996, Congress, on a bipartisan basis, instructed the FCC to assure 

that the tools of modern communications were brought to every classroom in the 

country. Since 1996, changes in communications technology have caused nearly 

every enterprise to change how it obtains and uses communications technology. It 

is appropriate, therefore, that the FCC take a hard look at how the E-Rate program 

distributes funds to assure that the money is spent to maximize its long-term impact, and this is one of the most important questions involved with the current FCC 

proceeding. 

We believe that proceeding will demonstrate a consensus that the current system 

does not do a good job providing schools an incentive to invest efficiently in what 

are long-term assets. The LEAD Commission looks forward to evaluating various 

proposals designed to do so. For example, there are likely to be proposals that improve transparency, so as to create a more efficient market for long-term investments. Others, we believe, will advocate for benchmarks or targets to realign incentives for long-term investments. Another proposal worthy of consideration is the creation of a capital investment fund to reflect, as most enterprises do, the difference 

between using funds for capital expenses and operating expenses. At this time, the 

LEAD Commission is not firmly wedded to any particular tactic for focusing funding 

on long-term investments but looks forward to evaluating all the proposals before 

the FCC. We are confident the process will reveal a number of good ideas for improving how funds are used. 

Question 1a. It seems to me that some of the E-Rate eligible services, such as paging, are outdated. Should the list of eligible services be revisited? If so, are there 

any services that you believe should be removed? Are there any that you believe 

are missing from the list? 

Answer. I agree that some services are outdated and the list of eligible services 

should be revisited. As a preliminary matter, the FCC should consider whether all 

currently eligible services that are not part of the broadband infrastructure should 

at a minimum be de-prioritized and possibly removed from the eligible services list; 

priority one could include both services and equipment related to broadband, such 

140 

as Internet access, WAN Connectivity, LAN equipment, Wi-Fi equipment, and potentially firewalls and content filters. It may also prove important to include those 

costs, which, as noted above, enable long-term investments so as to lower the ultimate cost. 

Question 1b. Is it possible to incentivize long-term investments without increasing 

the overall cost of the E-Rate program? 

Answer. When evaluating costs, it is always important to remember the cost is 

both a function of amount and time. That is, one can spend less in a given year 

but if one spends that amount over more years, the overall cost of the program could 

be greater than it should be. So here, the focus should be how do we provide the 

necessary bandwidth upgrade to the greatest number of students in the shortest 

amount of time at the lowest cost, rather than an artificial, and misleading focus 

on a single short-term metric. 

Further, there are ways to incent long-term investments that do not lead to increasing the overall cost, and in the long run, reduce costs. As noted above, one proposal worth considering is to carve out a portion of the program funds for a capital 

investment fund. This could be done with some of the unused rollover funds and 

could be supplemented with the funds saved by eliminating certain currently eligible services, also as noted above. 

Question 1c. How could E-rate be modified to enable the deployment of enterprise 

Wi-Fi? Might this help to lower overall costs or to provide services that currently 

fall beyond the funding cap? 

Answer. Enterprise Wi-Fi is already an eligible service. The problem is that under 

the current system, it is a Priority 2 service and therefore, few schools receive funding for it. This problem could be solved either by making it a Priority 1 service or 

by making it part of an E-Rate capital investment program. Either would both improve the quality of the service and the efficiency of the investment. 

Question 2. There is very little data available on the capacity and speed of current 

school networks. Would it be beneficial to require schools who apply for E-rate funding to provide data on the speed and capacity of their networks? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes. It should be done through passive monitoring, in a way similar to 

the FCC’s Measuring Broadband America program. This will improve the FCC’s 

ability to manage the program and focus funds on the schools that most need the 

upgrades. 

Question 2a. Should a minimum bandwidth or speed level be implemented? If so, 

what should this level be based on (i.e., number of users/school, demand for bandwidth)? 

Answer. We believe that the FCC should establish a minimum bandwidth level 

that reflects both the current need for the greater bandwidth to deliver today’s digital materials as well as building capacity for future needs. We look forward to reviewing the comments in the FCC proceeding to evaluate the dimensions of those 

minimums. Based on the extensive research by the LEAD Commission, which is 

consistent with a number of other studies conducted by other groups, we believe the 

initial target for a Wide Area Network connection should be 1 gigabit and that every 

school with more than 100 students should have a fiber connection capable of providing that capacity. 

Question 3. How can this data be plugged into the National Broadband Map? 

Answer. It is very easy to plug the information into the Map. The FCC can have 

its mapping team write an application programming interface (API) that would 

allow the National Broadband Map to pull the data. 

Question 4. In the past, E-Rate funded connections have been audited to ensure 

that only school/library traffic was riding on the subsidized connection, which resulted in high usage during the typical school day and unused capacity during evenings, weekends, and school vacations. Should E-Rate 2.0 include provisions that 

could support home-based broadband connectivity for students? If not, why not? 

Answer. The FCC should consider whether to make home connectivity an eligible 

service but at a lower priority level so that it does not interfere with ensuring that 

schools have the connectivity and infrastructure they need. Further, if the FCC includes home-based connectivity, it should consider a cap on the amount of the reimbursement per student. 

Question 4a. Do you believe E-Rate funded connections could be leveraged during 

these ‘‘down’’ periods to provide for load balancing and added technology availability 

for the campus/community? If so, do you have any suggestions regarding how this 

type of function could be utilized without a large increase in costs or in concerns 

about the accountability of the program? 

141 

Answer. The FCC should consider allowing experimentation concerning community off-hour usage and it should also consider a broader program allowing such 

usage. The amount of capacity subsidized by E-Rate funds, however, should be 

based on the usage during the school day. 

Question 5. On June 6, 2013, the Administration unveiled a new initiative called 

ConnectED, which intends to connect 99 percent of America’s students to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed wireless within 5 years. Do you 

have any recommendations for the FCC or Congress in terms of how E-Rate can 

be better aligned to support curriculum or technology training goals? 

Answer. The curriculum and technology training goals are very important and all 

levels of government should coordinate as to how to best achieve them. There are 

a number of programs designed to address these goals. However, the E-Rate program is currently oversubscribed and is likely to remain so. We believe it should 

stay focused on providing the necessary foundation of infrastructure and its mandate should not be expanded to include these other goals. 

As the LEAD Commission discusses in our recent Report Paving a Path Forward 

for Digital Learning in the United States (Sept. 2013) (submitted herewith), we believe the government should act to develop safe, effective and efficient ways for 

teachers, school principals, school districts and states to evaluate and purchase comprehensive, high quality digital learning products. To foster that acceleration, the 

LEAD Commission recommends the following: 

• Evolve State and District Purchasing Cycles to the Digital Age. Currently, 

many states and districts live with multi-year purchasing cycles dictated by the 

traditional textbook ‘‘edition’’ model. In a world of constantly changing digital 

delivery, states and districts need to adopt more flexible, timely procurement 

processes. 

• Create an Independent Certification Program. An independent, non-governmental certification program that identifies approved, high-quality curriculum 

and content solutions is needed in the market. It would help support a safe purchasing process and incentivize school districts to accelerate the transition to 

digital learning. 

• Increase Innovation and Research Funds. The marketplace would benefit from 

the availability of capital to fuel both new innovations and research to better 

understand and verify the effectiveness of new advances. Capital targeting entrepreneurs, businesses and researchers would not only help bring new, more 

effective products to market, but also foster greater competition. We have seen 

variations of this model work successfully with the National Institutes of 

Health, InQTel and DARPA . . . why not in education? 

Question 6. Could Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) Title II funds, typically 

allocated for teacher training, be used in a different manner to ensure teachers are 

trained to integrate educational technology into their instruction? 

Question 6a. Is Title 1 participation the ‘‘right’’ basis for subsidy calculations or 

should it be based on technology need and the actual dollars necessary to reach a 

desired speed/capacity level and sustain it over time? 

Question 6b. How do we effectively harness the opportunities enabled by technology to train or retrain individuals to enter sectors that will experience high 

growth? 

Answer. The LEAD Commission does not have specific recommendations at this 

time as to the specific Federal funding allocations. On the training side, the LEAD 

Commission Report has demonstrated a need and suggested a framework for improvements. The LEAD Commission believes digital learning is not about ‘‘one to 

one’’ learning between a student and a device; it is about ‘‘one to one to one’’ learning involving a teacher, a student and a device. A common perception is that teachers are anti-technology, but LEAD’s polling shows that 96 percent of teachers believe that the integration of technology in teaching and learning is important to the 

education of America’s students. Yet only 18 percent of teachers believe they are receiving the necessary training to use technology to its fullest potential in the classroom. For technology to be properly deployed, teachers need to be empowered to embrace and use it effectively in the classroom. 

The LEAD Commission strongly recommends establishing a program to empower 

100 percent of teachers on use of information and communications technology over 

the next three years. The creation of ‘‘master teachers’’ to help train other teachers 

in best practices could be crucial to scaling this program (a practice used successVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:28 Dec 05, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\85768.TXT JACKIE
142 

fully in other countries). Funding for teachers’ professional development would utilize portions of existing Federal dollars available for teacher training. 

Æ